Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v7 1/8] lib: s390x: introduce bitfield for PSW mask

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 11/3/23 10:29, Nico Boehr wrote:
Changing the PSW mask is currently little clumsy, since there is only the
PSW_MASK_* defines. This makes it hard to change e.g. only the address
space in the current PSW without a lot of bit fiddling.

Introduce a bitfield for the PSW mask. This makes this kind of
modifications much simpler and easier to read.

Signed-off-by: Nico Boehr <nrb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx>

Reviewed-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

---
  lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
  s390x/selftest.c         | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  2 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h b/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h
index bb26e008cc68..f629b6d0a17f 100644
--- a/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h
+++ b/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h
@@ -37,9 +37,32 @@ struct stack_frame_int {
  };
struct psw {
-	uint64_t	mask;
+	union {
+		uint64_t	mask;
+		struct {
+			uint64_t reserved00:1;
+			uint64_t per:1;
+			uint64_t reserved02:3;
+			uint64_t dat:1;
+			uint64_t io:1;
+			uint64_t ext:1;
+			uint64_t key:4;
+			uint64_t reserved12:1;
+			uint64_t mchk:1;
+			uint64_t wait:1;
+			uint64_t pstate:1;
+			uint64_t as:2;
+			uint64_t cc:2;
+			uint64_t prg_mask:4;
+			uint64_t reserved24:7;
+			uint64_t ea:1;
+			uint64_t ba:1;
+			uint64_t reserved33:31;
+		};
+	};
  	uint64_t	addr;
  };
+_Static_assert(sizeof(struct psw) == 16, "PSW size");
#define PSW(m, a) ((struct psw){ .mask = (m), .addr = (uint64_t)(a) }) diff --git a/s390x/selftest.c b/s390x/selftest.c
index 13fd36bc06f8..92ed4e5d35eb 100644
--- a/s390x/selftest.c
+++ b/s390x/selftest.c
@@ -74,6 +74,39 @@ static void test_malloc(void)
  	report_prefix_pop();
  }
+static void test_psw_mask(void)
+{
+	uint64_t expected_key = 0xf;
+	struct psw test_psw = PSW(0, 0);
+
+	report_prefix_push("PSW mask");
+	test_psw.mask = PSW_MASK_DAT;
+	report(test_psw.dat, "DAT matches expected=0x%016lx actual=0x%016lx", PSW_MASK_DAT, test_psw.mask);
+
+	test_psw.mask = PSW_MASK_IO;
+	report(test_psw.io, "IO matches expected=0x%016lx actual=0x%016lx", PSW_MASK_IO, test_psw.mask);
+
+	test_psw.mask = PSW_MASK_EXT;
+	report(test_psw.ext, "EXT matches expected=0x%016lx actual=0x%016lx", PSW_MASK_EXT, test_psw.mask);
+
+	test_psw.mask = expected_key << (63 - 11);
+	report(test_psw.key == expected_key, "PSW Key matches expected=0x%lx actual=0x%x", expected_key, test_psw.key);
+
+	test_psw.mask = 1UL << (63 - 13);
+	report(test_psw.mchk, "MCHK matches");
+
+	test_psw.mask = PSW_MASK_WAIT;
+	report(test_psw.wait, "Wait matches expected=0x%016lx actual=0x%016lx", PSW_MASK_WAIT, test_psw.mask);
+
+	test_psw.mask = PSW_MASK_PSTATE;
+	report(test_psw.pstate, "Pstate matches expected=0x%016lx actual=0x%016lx", PSW_MASK_PSTATE, test_psw.mask);
+
+	test_psw.mask = PSW_MASK_64;
+	report(test_psw.ea && test_psw.ba, "BA/EA matches expected=0x%016lx actual=0x%016lx", PSW_MASK_64, test_psw.mask);
+
+	report_prefix_pop();
+}
+
  int main(int argc, char**argv)
  {
  	report_prefix_push("selftest");
@@ -89,6 +122,7 @@ int main(int argc, char**argv)
  	test_fp();
  	test_pgm_int();
  	test_malloc();
+	test_psw_mask();
return report_summary();
  }




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Info]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Linux Media]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux