On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 10:29:30 +0100
Nico Boehr <nrb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@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();
> }
