On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 10:32:43AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 15.10.24 10:21, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 10:16:20AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > On 15.10.24 10:12, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 09:35:27PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > > > On 14.10.24 20:04, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > > "If only there would be a query subcode available, so that the program > > > > check handling would not be necessary; but in particular my new subcode > > > > is not worth adding it" :) > > > > > > > > Anyway, I do not care too much. > > > > > > > > > > Okay, I see your point: it would allow for removing the program check > > > handling from the STORAGE LIMIT invocation. > > > > > > ... if only we wouldn't need the exact same program check handling for the > > > new query subfunction :P > > > > Yeah yeah, but I think you got that this might help in the future. > > Right. Adding it later also doesn't quite help to get rid of the checks > here, because some user space might implement STORAGE LIMIT without QUERY. This would only help if the diag500 documentation would state that implementation of the QUERY subcode is mandatory. That is: for every new subcode larger than the QUERY subcode QUERY must also exist. That way we only would have to implement program check handling once, if a program check happens on QUERY none of the newer subcodes is available, otherwise the return value would indicate that. Otherwise this whole excercise would be pointless.
