On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 16:10:32 +0100
Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
hmmm, this is actually not a bad idea at all
then it would be possible to also define
#define PSW_CUR_MASK(a) PSW(extract_psw_mask(), (a))
and have the code like this:
smp_cpu_setup(idx, PSW_CUR_MASK(addr));
I think I will do it like that (and also send a second patch where I
actually put it to use)
