On 8/18/21 11:30 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 13/08/2021 09.36, Janosch Frank wrote: >> Let's not get bitten by an extension of the query struct and handle >> the rc 0x100 error properly which does indicate that the UV has more >> data for us. >> >> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> lib/s390x/uv.c | 4 +++- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/lib/s390x/uv.c b/lib/s390x/uv.c >> index fd9de944..c5c69c47 100644 >> --- a/lib/s390x/uv.c >> +++ b/lib/s390x/uv.c >> @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@ int uv_setup(void) >> if (!test_facility(158)) >> return 0; >> >> - assert(!uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb_qui)); >> + uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb_qui); >> + >> + assert(uvcb_qui.header.rc == 1 || uvcb_qui.header.rc == 0x100); > > Don't you want to continue to check the return code of the uv_call() function? > > Thomas > The rc==0x100 case is a cc==1 and the rc==1 is a cc==0 so I had to delete the check. Those smaller patches are already upstream btw.
