On 30/07/2020 13.16, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 05:54:15 -0400
> Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Test the error conditions of guest 2 Ultravisor calls, namely:
>> * Query Ultravisor information
>> * Set shared access
>> * Remove shared access
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> lib/s390x/asm/uv.h | 68 +++++++++++++++++++
>> s390x/Makefile | 1 +
>> s390x/unittests.cfg | 3 +
>> s390x/uv-guest.c | 159 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 4 files changed, 231 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 lib/s390x/asm/uv.h
>> create mode 100644 s390x/uv-guest.c
>>
>
> (...)
>
>> +static inline int uv_call(unsigned long r1, unsigned long r2)
>> +{
>> + int cc;
>> +
>> + asm volatile(
>> + "0: .insn rrf,0xB9A40000,%[r1],%[r2],0,0\n"
>> + " brc 3,0b\n"
>> + " ipm %[cc]\n"
>> + " srl %[cc],28\n"
>> + : [cc] "=d" (cc)
>> + : [r1] "a" (r1), [r2] "a" (r2)
>> + : "memory", "cc");
>> + return cc;
>> +}
>
> This returns the condition code, but no caller seems to check it
> (instead, they look at header.rc, which is presumably only set if the
> instruction executed successfully in some way?)
>
> Looking at the kernel, it retries for cc > 1 (presumably busy
> conditions), and cc != 0 seems to be considered a failure. Do we want
> to look at the cc here as well?
It's there - but here it's in the assembly code, the "brc 3,0b".
Patch looks ok to me (but I didn't do a full review):
Acked-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx>
