On 17/12/2020 10.59, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>
> On 17.12.20 10:53, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 11/12/2020 11.00, Janosch Frank wrote:
>>> Not much to test except for the privilege and specification
>>> exceptions.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> lib/s390x/sclp.c | 2 ++
>>> lib/s390x/sclp.h | 6 +++++-
>>> s390x/intercept.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>>> 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/s390x/sclp.c b/lib/s390x/sclp.c
>>> index cf6ea7c..0001993 100644
>>> --- a/lib/s390x/sclp.c
>>> +++ b/lib/s390x/sclp.c
>>> @@ -138,6 +138,8 @@ void sclp_facilities_setup(void)
>>>
>>> assert(read_info);
>>>
>>> + sclp_facilities.has_diag318 = read_info->byte_134_diag318;
>>> +
>>> cpu = (void *)read_info + read_info->offset_cpu;
>>> for (i = 0; i < read_info->entries_cpu; i++, cpu++) {
>>> if (cpu->address == cpu0_addr) {
>>> diff --git a/lib/s390x/sclp.h b/lib/s390x/sclp.h
>>> index 6c86037..58f8e54 100644
>>> --- a/lib/s390x/sclp.h
>>> +++ b/lib/s390x/sclp.h
>>> @@ -105,7 +105,8 @@ extern struct sclp_facilities sclp_facilities;
>>>
>>> struct sclp_facilities {
>>> uint64_t has_sief2 : 1;
>>> - uint64_t : 63;
>>> + uint64_t has_diag318 : 1;
>>> + uint64_t : 62;
>>> };
>>>
>>> typedef struct ReadInfo {
>>> @@ -130,6 +131,9 @@ typedef struct ReadInfo {
>>> uint16_t highest_cpu;
>>> uint8_t _reserved5[124 - 122]; /* 122-123 */
>>> uint32_t hmfai;
>>> + uint8_t reserved7[134 - 128];
>>> + uint8_t byte_134_diag318 : 1;
>>> + uint8_t : 7;
>>> struct CPUEntry entries[0];
>>
>> ... the entries[] array can be moved around here without any further ado?
>> Looks confusing to me. Should there be a CPUEntry array here at all, or only
>> in ReadCpuInfo?
>
> there is offset_cpu for the cpu entries at the beginning of the structure.
Ah, thanks, right, this was used earlier in the patch series, now I
remember. But I think the "struct CPUEntry entries[0]" here is rather
confusing, since there is no guarantee that the entries are really at this
location ... I think this line should rather be replaced by a comment saying
that offset_cpu should be used instead.
Thomas
