On Mon, 2022-11-28 at 13:38 +0100, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> Since a lot of code starts new CPUs using the current PSW mask, add a
> wrapper to streamline the operation and hopefully make the code of the
> tests more readable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> lib/s390x/smp.h | 9 +++++++++
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/lib/s390x/smp.h b/lib/s390x/smp.h
> index f4ae973d..0bcb1999 100644
> --- a/lib/s390x/smp.h
> +++ b/lib/s390x/smp.h
> @@ -47,4 +47,13 @@ void smp_setup(void);
> int smp_sigp(uint16_t idx, uint8_t order, unsigned long parm, uint32_t *status);
> struct lowcore *smp_get_lowcore(uint16_t idx);
>
> +static inline void smp_cpu_setup_cur_psw_mask(uint16_t idx, void *addr)
> +{
> + struct psw psw = {
> + .mask = extract_psw_mask(),
> + .addr = (unsigned long)addr,
> + };
> + smp_cpu_setup(idx, psw);
> +}
> +
> #endif
Reviewed-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Although I would have expected you to also use the function.
I'm wondering if just improving the ergonomics of creating a psw would suffice
#define PSW(m, a) ((struct psw){ .mask = (uint64_t)m, .addr = (uint64_t)a })
Then it would look like
smp_cpu_setup(idx, PSW(extract_psw_mask(), addr))
and the macro might come in handy in other situations, too, but I haven't surveyed the code.
