[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f3fc81a7-ea71-56f6-16e0-e43fc36d646e@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 09:26:11 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: cohuck@...hat.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com, frankja@...ux.ibm.com,
thuth@...hat.com, pasic@...ux.ibm.com, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ulrich.Weigand@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/14] KVM: s390: pv: add macros for UVC CC values
On 04.08.21 17:40, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> Add macros to describe the 4 possible CC values returned by the UVC
> instruction.
>
> Signed-off-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
> arch/s390/include/asm/uv.h | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/uv.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/uv.h
> index 12c5f006c136..b35add51b967 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/uv.h
> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/uv.h
> @@ -18,6 +18,11 @@
> #include <asm/page.h>
> #include <asm/gmap.h>
>
> +#define UVC_CC_OK 0
> +#define UVC_CC_ERROR 1
> +#define UVC_CC_BUSY 2
> +#define UVC_CC_PARTIAL 3
> +
> #define UVC_RC_EXECUTED 0x0001
> #define UVC_RC_INV_CMD 0x0002
> #define UVC_RC_INV_STATE 0x0003
>
Do we have any users we could directly fix up? AFAIKs, most users don't
really care about the cc value, only about cc vs !cc.
The only instances I was able to spot quickly:
diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/uv.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/uv.h
index 12c5f006c136..dd72d325f9e8 100644
--- a/arch/s390/include/asm/uv.h
+++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/uv.h
@@ -233,7 +233,7 @@ static inline int uv_call(unsigned long r1, unsigned
long r2)
do {
cc = __uv_call(r1, r2);
- } while (cc > 1);
+ } while (cc >= UVC_CC_BUSY);
return cc;
}
@@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ static inline int uv_call_sched(unsigned long r1,
unsigned long r2)
do {
cc = __uv_call(r1, r2);
cond_resched();
- } while (cc > 1);
+ } while (cc >= UVC_CC_BUSY);
return cc;
}
Of course, we could replace all checks for cc vs !cc with "cc !=
UVC_CC_OK" vs "cc == UVC_CC_OK".
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists