Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v8 01/12] s390x: Use PSW bits definitions in cstart

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 2020-06-08 16:52, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 08/06/2020 16.33, Pierre Morel wrote:


On 2020-06-08 10:43, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 08/06/2020 10.12, Pierre Morel wrote:
This patch defines the PSW bits EA/BA used to initialize the PSW masks
for exceptions.

Since some PSW mask definitions exist already in arch_def.h we add these
definitions there.
We move all PSW definitions together and protect assembler code against
C syntax.

Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
   lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h | 15 +++++++++++----
   s390x/cstart64.S         | 15 ++++++++-------
   2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h b/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h
index 1b3bb0c..5388114 100644
--- a/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h
+++ b/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h
@@ -10,15 +10,21 @@
   #ifndef _ASM_S390X_ARCH_DEF_H_
   #define _ASM_S390X_ARCH_DEF_H_
   +#define PSW_MASK_EXT            0x0100000000000000UL
+#define PSW_MASK_DAT            0x0400000000000000UL
+#define PSW_MASK_SHORT_PSW        0x0008000000000000UL
+#define PSW_MASK_PSTATE            0x0001000000000000UL
+#define PSW_MASK_BA            0x0000000080000000UL
+#define PSW_MASK_EA            0x0000000100000000UL
+
+#define PSW_EXCEPTION_MASK    (PSW_MASK_EA | PSW_MASK_BA)

PSW_EXCEPTION_MASK sounds a little bit unfortunate - that term rather
reminds me of something that disables some interrupts
... in case you
respin, maybe rather use something like "PSW_EXC_ADDR_MODE" ?

EXCEPTIONS_PSW_MASK ?

I think it is the _MASK suffix that mainly bugs me here, since this is
not a define that you normally use for extracting the bits from a PSW...
so EXCEPTIONS_PSW without _MASK would be fine for me... but as long as
I'm the only one who has a strange feeling about this, it's also ok if
you keep the current name.

  Thomas


The _MASK is because it is applied to the psw.mask and not to the psw.addr part.

But I agree that the name is not good, to keep the naming convention, may be it should be:

PSW_MASK_ON_EXCEPTION

beginning with PSW_MASK_ like all other psw.mask definitions and ON_EXCEPTION clearly define when it is used.

Pierre

--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Info]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Linux Media]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux