qemu-s390x
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [qemu-s390x] [PATCH v2 09/10] s390x/cpumodel: disable csske and bpb


From: David Hildenbrand
Subject: Re: [qemu-s390x] [PATCH v2 09/10] s390x/cpumodel: disable csske and bpb from gen15 cpu models onwards
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 13:18:09 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1

On 26.04.19 13:10, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> These facilities are deprecated and no longer needed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <address@hidden>
> ---
>  target/s390x/gen-features.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/target/s390x/gen-features.c b/target/s390x/gen-features.c
> index 6260f56dc1..c346b76bdf 100644
> --- a/target/s390x/gen-features.c
> +++ b/target/s390x/gen-features.c
> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
>  
>  #include <inttypes.h>
>  #include <stdio.h>
> +#include <string.h>
>  #include "cpu_features_def.h"
>  
>  #define ARRAY_SIZE(array) (sizeof(array) / sizeof(array[0]))
> @@ -833,6 +834,11 @@ static void set_bits(uint64_t list[], BitSpec bits)
>      }
>  }
>  
> +static inline void clear_bit(uint64_t list[], unsigned long nr)
> +{
> +    list[nr / 64] &= ~(1ULL << (nr % 64));
> +}
> +
>  static void print_feature_defs(void)
>  {
>      uint64_t base_feat[S390_FEAT_MAX / 64 + 1] = {};
> @@ -843,6 +849,12 @@ static void print_feature_defs(void)
>      printf("\n/* CPU model feature list data */\n");
>  
>      for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(CpuFeatDef); i++) {
> +        /* With gen15 CSSKE and BPB are deprecated */
> +        if (strcmp(CpuFeatDef[i].name, "S390_FEAT_LIST_GEN15_GA1") == 0) {
> +            clear_bit(base_feat, S390_FEAT_CONDITIONAL_SSKE);
> +            clear_bit(default_feat, S390_FEAT_CONDITIONAL_SSKE);
> +            clear_bit(default_feat, S390_FEAT_BPB);
> +        }
>          set_bits(base_feat, CpuFeatDef[i].base_bits);
>          /* add the base to the default features */
>          set_bits(default_feat, CpuFeatDef[i].base_bits);
> 

Can you squash that into the previous patch, so it doesn't look like the
case model is suddenly changed?

-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]