On 12/07/2023 13.41, Nico Boehr wrote:
Changing the PSW mask is currently little clumsy, since there is only the
PSW_MASK_* defines. This makes it hard to change e.g. only the address
space in the current PSW without a lot of bit fiddling.
Introduce a bitfield for the PSW mask. This makes this kind of
modifications much simpler and easier to read.
Signed-off-by: Nico Boehr <nrb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
s390x/selftest.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h b/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h
index bb26e008cc68..53279572a9ee 100644
--- a/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h
+++ b/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h
@@ -37,12 +37,36 @@ struct stack_frame_int {
};
struct psw {
- uint64_t mask;
+ union {
+ uint64_t mask;
+ struct {
+ uint8_t reserved00:1;
+ uint8_t per:1;
+ uint8_t reserved02:3;
+ uint8_t dat:1;
+ uint8_t io:1;
+ uint8_t ext:1;
+ uint8_t key:4;
+ uint8_t reserved12:1;
+ uint8_t mchk:1;
+ uint8_t wait:1;
+ uint8_t pstate:1;
+ uint8_t as:2;
+ uint8_t cc:2;
+ uint8_t prg_mask:4;
+ uint8_t reserved24:7;
+ uint8_t ea:1;
+ uint8_t ba:1;
+ uint32_t reserved33:31;
+ };
+ };
uint64_t addr;
};
+_Static_assert(sizeof(struct psw) == 16, "PSW size");
#define PSW(m, a) ((struct psw){ .mask = (m), .addr = (uint64_t)(a) })
+
struct short_psw {
uint32_t mask;
uint32_t addr;
diff --git a/s390x/selftest.c b/s390x/selftest.c
index 13fd36bc06f8..8d81ba312279 100644
--- a/s390x/selftest.c
+++ b/s390x/selftest.c
@@ -74,6 +74,45 @@ static void test_malloc(void)
report_prefix_pop();
}
+static void test_psw_mask(void)
+{
+ uint64_t expected_key = 0xF;
+ struct psw test_psw = PSW(0, 0);
+
+ report_prefix_push("PSW mask");
+ test_psw.dat = 1;
+ report(test_psw.mask == PSW_MASK_DAT, "DAT matches expected=0x%016lx actual=0x%016lx", PSW_MASK_DAT, test_psw.mask);
+
+ test_psw.mask = 0;
+ test_psw.io = 1;
+ report(test_psw.mask == PSW_MASK_IO, "IO matches expected=0x%016lx actual=0x%016lx", PSW_MASK_IO, test_psw.mask);
+
+ test_psw.mask = 0;
+ test_psw.ext = 1;
+ report(test_psw.mask == PSW_MASK_EXT, "EXT matches expected=0x%016lx actual=0x%016lx", PSW_MASK_EXT, test_psw.mask);
+
+ test_psw.mask = expected_key << (63 - 11);
+ report(test_psw.key == expected_key, "PSW Key matches expected=0x%lx actual=0x%x", expected_key, test_psw.key);
Patch looks basically fine to me, but here my mind stumbled a little bit.
This test is written the other way round than the others. Nothing wrong with
that, it just feels a little bit inconsistent. I'd suggest to either do:
test_psw.mask = 0;
test_psw.key = expected_key;
report(test_psw.mask == expected_key << (63 - 11), ...);
or maybe even switch all the other tests around instead, so you could get
rid of the "test_psw.mask = 0" lines, e.g. :
test_psw.mask == PSW_MASK_IO;
report(test_psw.io, "IO matches ...");
etc.
Thomas
