On 15.10.24 10:46, Heiko Carstens wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 10:32:43AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 15.10.24 10:21, Heiko Carstens wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 10:16:20AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 15.10.24 10:12, Heiko Carstens wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 09:35:27PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 14.10.24 20:04, Heiko Carstens wrote:
"If only there would be a query subcode available, so that the program
check handling would not be necessary; but in particular my new subcode
is not worth adding it" :)
Anyway, I do not care too much.
Okay, I see your point: it would allow for removing the program check
handling from the STORAGE LIMIT invocation.
... if only we wouldn't need the exact same program check handling for the
new query subfunction :P
Yeah yeah, but I think you got that this might help in the future.
Right. Adding it later also doesn't quite help to get rid of the checks
here, because some user space might implement STORAGE LIMIT without QUERY.
This would only help if the diag500 documentation would state that
implementation of the QUERY subcode is mandatory. That is: for every
new subcode larger than the QUERY subcode QUERY must also exist.
That way we only would have to implement program check handling once,
if a program check happens on QUERY none of the newer subcodes is
available, otherwise the return value would indicate that.
Otherwise this whole excercise would be pointless.
Yes, that would be the idea.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
