On 03.01.19 13:58, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 2019-01-03 11:08, Janosch Frank wrote:
>> We need to properly implement interrupt handling for SCLP, because on
>> z/VM and LPAR SCLP calls are not synchronous!
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[...]
>> +
>> static void sclp_read_scp_info(ReadInfo *ri, int length)
>> {
>> unsigned int commands[] = { SCLP_CMDW_READ_SCP_INFO_FORCED,
>> SCLP_CMDW_READ_SCP_INFO };
>> - int i;
>> + int i, cc;
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(commands); i++) {
>> memset(&ri->h, 0, sizeof(ri->h));
>> ri->h.length = length;
>>
>> - if (sclp_service_call(commands[i], ri))
>> + sclp_mark_busy();
>> + cc = sclp_service_call(commands[i], ri);
>> + sclp_wait_busy();
>
> You already do the sclp_wait_busy() in sclp_service_call now, so I think
> you don't need the sclp_wait_busy() here anymore?
Yeah, that has to go.
>
> Also, what about moving the sclp_mark_busy() calls to the beginning of
> sclp_service_call() instead?
Wouldn't that create a race on the data of __sccb and we could end with
garbled scb commands?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
