On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 18:38:02 +0100
Michael Mueller <mimu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 04.01.19 14:19, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 18:29:00 +0100
> > Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On 19/12/2018 20:17, Michael Mueller wrote:
> >>> Add the IAM (Interruption Alert Mask) to the architecture specific
> >>> kvm struct. This mask in the GISA is used to define for which ISC
> >>> a GIB alert can be issued.
> >>>
> >>> The functions kvm_s390_gisc_register() and kvm_s390_gisc_unregister()
> >>> are used to (un)register a GISC (guest ISC) with a virtual machine and
> >>> its GISA.
> >>>
> >>> Upon successful completion, kvm_s390_gisc_register() returns the
> >>> ISC to be used for GIB alert interruptions. A negative return code
> >>> indicates an error during registration.
> >>>
> >>> Theses functions will be used by other adapter types like AP and PCI to
> >>> request pass-through interruption support.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Michael Mueller <mimu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 9 ++++++
> >>> arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>> 2 files changed, 75 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >
> >>> +int kvm_s390_gisc_register(struct kvm *kvm, u32 gisc)
> >>> +{
> >>> + if (!kvm->arch.gib_in_use)
> >>> + return -ENODEV;
> >>> + if (gisc > MAX_ISC)
> >>> + return -ERANGE;
> >>> +
> >>> + spin_lock(&kvm->arch.iam_ref_lock);
> >>> + if (kvm->arch.iam_ref_count[gisc] == 0)
> >>> + kvm->arch.iam |= 0x80 >> gisc;
> >>> + kvm->arch.iam_ref_count[gisc]++;
> >>> + if (kvm->arch.iam_ref_count[gisc] == 1)
> >>> + set_iam(kvm->arch.gisa, kvm->arch.iam);
> >>
> >> testing the set_iam return value?
> >> Even it should be fine if the caller works correctly, this is done
> >> before GISA is ever used.
>
> There is a rc but a check here is not required.
>
> There are three cases:
>
> a) This is the first ISC that gets registered, then the GISA is
> not in use and IAM is set in the GISA.
>
> b) A second ISC gets registered and the GISA is *not* in the
> alert list. Then the IAM is set here as well.
>
> c) A second ISC gets registered and the GISA is in the
> alert list. Then the IAM is intentionally not set here
> by set_iam(). It will be restored by get_ipm() with
> the new IAM value by the gib alert processing code.
>
>
> >
> > My feeling is that checking the return code is a good idea, even if it
> > Should Never Fail(tm).
> >
> >>
> >>> + spin_unlock(&kvm->arch.iam_ref_lock);
> >>> +
> >>> + return gib->nisc;
> >>> +}
> >>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_s390_gisc_register);
> >>> +
> >>> +int kvm_s390_gisc_unregister(struct kvm *kvm, u32 gisc)
> >>> +{
> >>> + int rc = 0;
> >>> +
> >>> + if (!kvm->arch.gib_in_use)
> >>> + return -ENODEV;
> >>> + if (gisc > MAX_ISC)
> >>> + return -ERANGE;
> >>> +
> >>> + spin_lock(&kvm->arch.iam_ref_lock);
> >>> + if (kvm->arch.iam_ref_count[gisc] == 0) {
> >>> + rc = -EINVAL;
> >>> + goto out;
> >>> + }
> >>> + kvm->arch.iam_ref_count[gisc]--;
> >>> + if (kvm->arch.iam_ref_count[gisc] == 0) {
> >>> + kvm->arch.iam &= ~(0x80 >> gisc);
> >>> + set_iam(kvm->arch.gisa, kvm->arch.iam);
> >
> > Any chance of this function failing here? If yes, would there be any
> > implications?
>
> It is the same here.
I'm not sure that I follow: This is the reverse operation
(unregistering the gisc). Can we rely on get_ipm() to do any fixup
later? Is that a problem for the caller?
Apologies if I sound confused (well, that's because I probably am);
this is hard to review without access to the hardware specification.
>
> >
> >>> + }
> >>> +out:
> >>> + spin_unlock(&kvm->arch.iam_ref_lock);
> >>> +
> >>> + return rc;
> >>> +}
> >>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_s390_gisc_unregister);
> >>> +
> >>> void kvm_s390_gib_destroy(void)
> >>> {
> >>> if (!gib)
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
