On 8/6/21 9:26 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 04.08.21 17:40, Claudio Imbrenda wrote: >> Add macros to describe the 4 possible CC values returned by the UVC >> instruction. >> >> Signed-off-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> arch/s390/include/asm/uv.h | 5 +++++ >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/uv.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/uv.h >> index 12c5f006c136..b35add51b967 100644 >> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/uv.h >> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/uv.h >> @@ -18,6 +18,11 @@ >> #include <asm/page.h> >> #include <asm/gmap.h> >> >> +#define UVC_CC_OK 0 >> +#define UVC_CC_ERROR 1 >> +#define UVC_CC_BUSY 2 >> +#define UVC_CC_PARTIAL 3 >> + >> #define UVC_RC_EXECUTED 0x0001 >> #define UVC_RC_INV_CMD 0x0002 >> #define UVC_RC_INV_STATE 0x0003 >> > > Do we have any users we could directly fix up? AFAIKs, most users don't > really care about the cc value, only about cc vs !cc. > > The only instances I was able to spot quickly: The only fix for the functions below that I would accept would be to check for cc 2 and 3. A cc >= UVC_CC_BUSY confuses me way too much when reading. But honestly for those two I'd just keep the code as is. I only asked Claudio to fix the code in the next patch and add this patch as it was not clearly visible he was dealing with a CC. > > > diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/uv.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/uv.h > index 12c5f006c136..dd72d325f9e8 100644 > --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/uv.h > +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/uv.h > @@ -233,7 +233,7 @@ static inline int uv_call(unsigned long r1, unsigned > long r2) > > do { > cc = __uv_call(r1, r2); > - } while (cc > 1); > + } while (cc >= UVC_CC_BUSY); > return cc; > } > > @@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ static inline int uv_call_sched(unsigned long r1, > unsigned long r2) > do { > cc = __uv_call(r1, r2); > cond_resched(); > - } while (cc > 1); > + } while (cc >= UVC_CC_BUSY); > return cc; > } > > > Of course, we could replace all checks for cc vs !cc with "cc != > UVC_CC_OK" vs "cc == UVC_CC_OK". >