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. Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231106163738.1116942-2-nrb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Signed-off-by: Nico Boehr <nrb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++++- s390x/selftest.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h b/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h index bb26e00..f629b6d 100644 --- a/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h +++ b/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h @@ -37,9 +37,32 @@ struct stack_frame_int { }; struct psw { - uint64_t mask; + union { + uint64_t mask; + struct { + uint64_t reserved00:1; + uint64_t per:1; + uint64_t reserved02:3; + uint64_t dat:1; + uint64_t io:1; + uint64_t ext:1; + uint64_t key:4; + uint64_t reserved12:1; + uint64_t mchk:1; + uint64_t wait:1; + uint64_t pstate:1; + uint64_t as:2; + uint64_t cc:2; + uint64_t prg_mask:4; + uint64_t reserved24:7; + uint64_t ea:1; + uint64_t ba:1; + uint64_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) }) diff --git a/s390x/selftest.c b/s390x/selftest.c index 13fd36b..92ed4e5 100644 --- a/s390x/selftest.c +++ b/s390x/selftest.c @@ -74,6 +74,39 @@ 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.mask = PSW_MASK_DAT; + report(test_psw.dat, "DAT matches expected=0x%016lx actual=0x%016lx", PSW_MASK_DAT, test_psw.mask); + + test_psw.mask = PSW_MASK_IO; + report(test_psw.io, "IO matches expected=0x%016lx actual=0x%016lx", PSW_MASK_IO, test_psw.mask); + + test_psw.mask = PSW_MASK_EXT; + report(test_psw.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); + + test_psw.mask = 1UL << (63 - 13); + report(test_psw.mchk, "MCHK matches"); + + test_psw.mask = PSW_MASK_WAIT; + report(test_psw.wait, "Wait matches expected=0x%016lx actual=0x%016lx", PSW_MASK_WAIT, test_psw.mask); + + test_psw.mask = PSW_MASK_PSTATE; + report(test_psw.pstate, "Pstate matches expected=0x%016lx actual=0x%016lx", PSW_MASK_PSTATE, test_psw.mask); + + test_psw.mask = PSW_MASK_64; + report(test_psw.ea && test_psw.ba, "BA/EA matches expected=0x%016lx actual=0x%016lx", PSW_MASK_64, test_psw.mask); + + report_prefix_pop(); +} + int main(int argc, char**argv) { report_prefix_push("selftest"); @@ -89,6 +122,7 @@ int main(int argc, char**argv) test_fp(); test_pgm_int(); test_malloc(); + test_psw_mask(); return report_summary(); } -- 2.41.0
