On 2020-06-09 09:39, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 08/06/2020 10.12, Pierre Morel wrote:
...snip...
+int css_enumerate(void)
+{
+ struct pmcw *pmcw = &schib.pmcw;
+ int scn_found = 0;
+ int dev_found = 0;
+ int schid = 0;
+ int cc;
+ int scn;
+
+ for (scn = 0; scn < 0xffff; scn++) {
+ cc = stsch(scn | SCHID_ONE, &schib);
+ switch (cc) {
+ case 0: /* 0 means SCHIB stored */
+ break;
+ case 3: /* 3 means no more channels */
+ goto out;
+ default: /* 1 or 2 should never happened for STSCH */
+ report_info("Unexpected error %d on subchannel %08x",
+ cc, scn | SCHID_ONE);
Should this maybe even be a report_abort() instead? Or leave the error
reporting to the caller...
report_abort() should be fine as if this happens something is really broken.
+ return cc;
+ }
...snip...
+static void test_enumerate(void)
+{
+ test_device_sid = css_enumerate();
+ if (test_device_sid & SCHID_ONE) {
+ report(1, "First device schid: 0x%08x", test_device_sid);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ switch (test_device_sid) {
+ case 0:
+ report (0, "No I/O device found");
+ break;
+ default: /* 1 or 2 should never happened for STSCH */
+ report(0, "Unexpected cc=%d during enumeration",
+ test_device_sid);
+ return;
+ }
Ok, so here is now the test failure for the cc=1 or 2 that should never
happen. That means currently you print out the CC for this error twice.
One time should be enough, either here, or use an report_abort() in the
css_enumerate(), I'd say.
Anyway, can you please replace this switch statement with a "if
(!test_device_sid)" instead? Or do you plan to add more "case"
statements later?
I will use the repor_abort() in the css_enumerate() so there
is only two case, I find a channel or not, so I don't even need the
second if :) .
Thanks,
Pierre
--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen
