Re: [PATCH v2 01/13] s390x: protvirt: Add diag308 subcodes 8 - 10

[Cornelia Huck]

On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 15:08:58 +0100
Janosch Frank <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 11/29/19 1:40 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > On 29/11/2019 10.47, Janosch Frank wrote:
> > [...]  
> >> Subcodes 8-10 are not valid in protected mode, we have to do a subcode
> >> 3 and then the 8 and 10 combination for a protected reboot.  
> > 
> > So if 8-10 are not valid in protected mode...
> >   
> >> @@ -59,6 +61,9 @@ int handle_diag_288(CPUS390XState *env, uint64_t r1, 
> >> uint64_t r3)
> >>  #define DIAG308_LOAD_NORMAL_DUMP    4
> >>  #define DIAG308_SET                 5
> >>  #define DIAG308_STORE               6
> >> +#define DIAG308_PV_SET              8
> >> +#define DIAG308_PV_STORE            9
> >> +#define DIAG308_PV_START            10
> >>  
> >>  static int diag308_parm_check(CPUS390XState *env, uint64_t r1, uint64_t 
> >> addr,
> >>                                uintptr_t ra, bool write)
> >> @@ -105,6 +110,7 @@ void handle_diag_308(CPUS390XState *env, uint64_t r1, 
> >> uint64_t r3, uintptr_t ra)
> >>          s390_ipl_reset_request(cs, S390_RESET_REIPL);
> >>          break;
> >>      case DIAG308_SET:
> >> +    case DIAG308_PV_SET:  
> > 
> > ... should you maybe add a check here (and the other cases) to make sure
> > that the guest is currently not running in PV mode? Or is this taken
> > care of by the Ultravisor already?  
> 
> The Ultravisor takes care of that.

I'm wondering whether we should add some asserts. If the uv is broken,
we're hosed anyway; but it might make the code flow more obvious?

pgpXF1dMOlTU0.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature