On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 15:58:07 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2020-07-09 15:52, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 15:41:56 +0200
> > Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2020-07-09 15:30, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 15:12:05 +0200
> >>> Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2020-07-09 13:40, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 10:07:47 +0200
> >>>>> Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>> (...)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> +/*
> >>>>>> + * css_msch: enable subchannel and set with specified ISC
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "css_enable: enable the subchannel with the specified ISC"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> + * @schid: Subchannel Identifier
> >>>>>> + * @isc : number of the interruption subclass to use
> >>>>>> + * Return value:
> >>>>>> + * On success: 0
> >>>>>> + * On error the CC of the faulty instruction
> >>>>>> + * or -1 if the retry count is exceeded.
> >>>>>> + */
> >>>>>> +int css_enable(int schid, int isc)
> >>>>>> +{
> >>>>>> + struct pmcw *pmcw = &schib.pmcw;
> >>>>>> + int retry_count = 0;
> >>>>>> + uint16_t flags;
> >>>>>> + int cc;
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + /* Read the SCHIB for this subchannel */
> >>>>>> + cc = stsch(schid, &schib);
> >>>>>> + if (cc) {
> >>>>>> + report_info("stsch: sch %08x failed with cc=%d", schid, cc);
> >>>>>> + return cc;
> >>>>>> + }
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + flags = PMCW_ENABLE | (isc << PMCW_ISC_SHIFT);
> >>>>>> + if ((pmcw->flags & flags) == flags) {
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think you want (pmcw->flags & PMCW_ENABLE) == PMCW_ENABLE -- this
> >>>>> catches the case of "subchannel has been enabled before, but with a
> >>>>> different isc".
> >>>>
> >>>> If with a different ISC, we need to modify the ISC.
> >>>> Don't we ?
> >>>
> >>> I think that's a policy decision (I would probably fail and require a
> >>> disable before setting another isc, but that's a matter of taste).
> >>>
> >>> Regardless, I think the current check doesn't even catch the 'different
> >>> isc' case?
> >>
> >> hum, right.
> >> If it is OK I remove this one.
> >> And I must rework the same test I do later
> >> in this patch.
> >
> > So, you mean checking for PMCW_ENABLE? Or not at all?
> >
> > (I'd check for PMCW_ENABLE.)
> >
>
> - if ((pmcw->flags & flags) == flags) {
> + if ((pmcw->flags & (PMCW_ISC_MASK | PMCW_ENABLE)) == flags) {
> report_info("stsch: sch %08x already enabled", schid);
> return 0;
> }
>
> I keep both, otherwise I return 0 without setting the ISC.
Ah, I missed the 'return 0'.
> then I have another error:
>
> retry:
> /* Update the SCHIB to enable the channel and set the ISC */
> + pmcw->flags &= ~(PMCW_ISC_MASK | PMCW_ENABLE);
Maybe ~PMCW_ISC_MASK is enough?
> pmcw->flags |= flags;
>
> and finaly the same as the first later...
>
> - if ((pmcw->flags & flags) == flags) {
> + if ((pmcw->flags & (PMCW_ISC_MASK | PMCW_ENABLE)) == flags) {
I think you can keep that as-is.
> report_info("stsch: sch %08x successfully modified
> after %d retries",
> schid, retry_count);
>
>
> is better I think.
> What do you think?
It's probably the right direction.
