On 6/1/23 10:03, Janosch Frank wrote:
On 5/30/23 14:40, Pierre Morel wrote:
If SCLP_CMDW_READ_SCP_INFO fails due to a short buffer, retry
with a greater buffer.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
You've been testing using all possible cpus, haven't you?
yes up to 248
}
-static void sclp_read_scp_info(ReadInfo *ri, int length)
+static bool sclp_read_scp_info_extended(unsigned int command,
ReadInfo *ri)
+{
+ int cc;
+
+ if (!test_facility(140)) {
+ report_abort("S390_FEAT_EXTENDED_LENGTH_SCCB missing");
That's the QEMU name for the facility, isn't it?
"extended-length-SCCB facility is missing" might be better since
that's the name that the architecture specifies for that feature.
yes
+ return false;
+ }
+ if (ri->h.length > (2 * PAGE_SIZE)) {
sizeof() would reduce the locations that we have to touch if we ever
want to increase the buffer in the future.
yes
+ report_abort("SCLP_READ_INFO expected size too big");
+ return false;
+ }
+
+ sclp_mark_busy();
+ memset(&ri->h, 0, sizeof(ri->h));
+ ri->h.length = 2 * PAGE_SIZE;
Same here
OK
+
+ cc = sclp_service_call(command, ri);
+ if (cc) {
+ report_abort("SCLP_READ_INFO error");
+ return false;
+ }
+ if (ri->h.response_code != SCLP_RC_NORMAL_READ_COMPLETION) {
+ report_abort("SCLP_READ_INFO error %02x", ri->h.response_code);
+ return false;
+ }
+
+ return true;
+}
+
+static void sclp_read_scp_info(ReadInfo *ri)
{
unsigned int commands[] = { SCLP_CMDW_READ_SCP_INFO_FORCED,
SCLP_CMDW_READ_SCP_INFO };
+ int length = PAGE_SIZE;
int i, cc;
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(commands); i++) {
@@ -101,19 +133,29 @@ static void sclp_read_scp_info(ReadInfo *ri,
int length)
ri->h.length = length;
cc = sclp_service_call(commands[i], ri);
- if (cc)
- break;
- if (ri->h.response_code == SCLP_RC_NORMAL_READ_COMPLETION)
+ if (cc) {
+ report_abort("SCLP_READ_INFO error");
return;
- if (ri->h.response_code != SCLP_RC_INVALID_SCLP_COMMAND)
+ }
+
+ switch (ri->h.response_code) {
+ case SCLP_RC_NORMAL_READ_COMPLETION:
+ return;
+ case SCLP_RC_INVALID_SCLP_COMMAND:
break;
+ case SCLP_RC_INSUFFICIENT_SCCB_LENGTH:
+ sclp_read_scp_info_extended(commands[i], ri);
+ return;
+ default:
+ report_abort("READ_SCP_INFO failed");
+ return;
+ }
}
- report_abort("READ_SCP_INFO failed");
}
void sclp_read_info(void)
{
- sclp_read_scp_info((void *)_read_info, SCCB_SIZE);
Why did you remove that?
You could have re-tried with the extended-length in
sclp_read_scp_info(). Or you could return the rc and introduce a tiny
function that tries both lengths depending on the rc.
Yes, I can let it here. I found it has little sense to give the length
as parameter.
Retrying with extended length in sclp_read_scp_info() is what is done
isn'it?
It does not change a lot to let the first used size here so I will let
it here.
+ sclp_read_scp_info((void *)_read_info);
read_info = (ReadInfo *)_read_info;
}
