On Thu, 12 May 2022 16:01:06 +0200
Nico Boehr <nrb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Right now, it is not very convenient to have expected failures when checking for
> program interrupts. Let's introduce check_pgm_int_code_xfail() with an API
> similar to report_xfail() to make the programmer's life easier.
>
> With this, we can express check_pgm_int_code() as a special case of
> check_pgm_int_code_xfail() with xfail = false.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nico Boehr <nrb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> lib/s390x/asm/interrupt.h | 1 +
> lib/s390x/interrupt.c | 9 +++++++--
> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/s390x/asm/interrupt.h b/lib/s390x/asm/interrupt.h
> index d9ab0bd781c9..88731da9e341 100644
> --- a/lib/s390x/asm/interrupt.h
> +++ b/lib/s390x/asm/interrupt.h
> @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ void handle_svc_int(void);
> void expect_pgm_int(void);
> void expect_ext_int(void);
> uint16_t clear_pgm_int(void);
> +void check_pgm_int_code_xfail(bool xfail, uint16_t code);
> void check_pgm_int_code(uint16_t code);
... here ^ (see below)
>
> /* Activate low-address protection */
> diff --git a/lib/s390x/interrupt.c b/lib/s390x/interrupt.c
> index 27d3b767210f..b61f7d588550 100644
> --- a/lib/s390x/interrupt.c
> +++ b/lib/s390x/interrupt.c
> @@ -47,14 +47,19 @@ uint16_t clear_pgm_int(void)
> return code;
> }
>
> -void check_pgm_int_code(uint16_t code)
> +void check_pgm_int_code_xfail(bool xfail, uint16_t code)
> {
> mb();
> - report(code == lc->pgm_int_code,
> + report_xfail(xfail, code == lc->pgm_int_code,
> "Program interrupt: expected(%d) == received(%d)", code,
> lc->pgm_int_code);
> }
>
> +void check_pgm_int_code(uint16_t code)
> +{
> + check_pgm_int_code_xfail(false, code);
> +}
> +
... maybe at this point make it a macroid (static inline function)
directly in the .h ?
> void register_pgm_cleanup_func(void (*f)(void))
> {
> pgm_cleanup_func = f;
