hw/s390x/css.c | 163 ++++++++++++-------------------------------- hw/s390x/s390-ccw.c | 11 ++- hw/vfio/ccw.c | 28 ++++++-- include/hw/s390x/css.h | 47 ++++++++++--- include/hw/s390x/s390-ccw.h | 2 +- target/s390x/ioinst.c | 136 +++++++----------------------------- 6 files changed, 132 insertions(+), 255 deletions(-)
Abstract ======= The basic idea is: tell how to handle an unusual condition where it's identified, instead of mapping it to an errno (more or less arbitrarily), then possibly mapping these errnos around, to finally (mentally) map the errno back to the condition and take appropriate action. According to Dong Jia the patch-set also has a functional value: for ccw pass-through, he is planing to pass-through the instruction completion information (cc or interruption condition) from the kernel, and this patch set can pretty much be seen as a preparation for that. Changelog ========= Patch 1 should be already applied to Conny's tree. I've included it nevertheless so guys working on top of current master have everything in place. v2 -> v3: * somewhat uwillingly traded the type safe struct to a somewhat type safe enum (because considered ugly) (Thomas, Conny) * dropped 'template approach' patch which intended to further consolidate IO inst. handlers having lot's of logic and code in common (Conny) * added warning if vfio-ccw ORB does not have the flags required by the vfio-ccw implementation as suggested (Dong Jia) * got rid of some unintentional changes (Dong Jia) * reworded some stuff (comments, commit messages) (Dong Jia) v1 -> v2: * use assert if do_subchannel_work without any functions being accepted * generate unit-exception if ccw-vfio can't handle an otherwise good channel program (due to extra limitations) * keep using return values opposed to recording into SubchDev * split out 'add infrastructure' from 'refactor first handler' * reworded some commit messanges and comments * rebased on top of current master * dropped r-b's and acks because of the magnitude of the changes Testing ======= Nothing happened since v2 except for a quick smoke test. Dong Jia gave v2 a spin with a focus on vfio-ccw. @Dong Jia I would appreciate some proper testing, especially regarding the changes in vfio-ccw (patch #3). Halil Pasic (7): s390x/css: be more consistent if broken beyond repair s390x/css: IO instr handler ending control s390x: improve error handling for SSCH and RSCH s390x: refactor error handling for XSCH handler s390x: refactor error handling for CSCH handler s390x: refactor error handling for HSCH handler s390x: refactor error handling for MSCH handler hw/s390x/css.c | 163 ++++++++++++-------------------------------- hw/s390x/s390-ccw.c | 11 ++- hw/vfio/ccw.c | 28 ++++++-- include/hw/s390x/css.h | 47 ++++++++++--- include/hw/s390x/s390-ccw.h | 2 +- target/s390x/ioinst.c | 136 +++++++----------------------------- 6 files changed, 132 insertions(+), 255 deletions(-) -- 2.13.5
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:04:46 +0200 Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > Abstract > ======= > > The basic idea is: tell how to handle an unusual condition where it's > identified, instead of mapping it to an errno (more or less arbitrarily), > then possibly mapping these errnos around, to finally (mentally) map the > errno back to the condition and take appropriate action. > > According to Dong Jia the patch-set also has a functional value: for ccw > pass-through, he is planing to pass-through the instruction completion > information (cc or interruption condition) from the kernel, and this > patch set can pretty much be seen as a preparation for that. > > Changelog > ========= > > Patch 1 should be already applied to Conny's tree. I've included it > nevertheless so guys working on top of current master have everything in > place. > > v2 -> v3: > * somewhat uwillingly traded the type safe struct to a somewhat > type safe enum (because considered ugly) (Thomas, Conny) > * dropped 'template approach' patch which intended to further > consolidate IO inst. handlers having lot's of logic and code in > common (Conny) > * added warning if vfio-ccw ORB does not have the flags required > by the vfio-ccw implementation as suggested (Dong Jia) > * got rid of some unintentional changes (Dong Jia) > * reworded some stuff (comments, commit messages) (Dong Jia) > > v1 -> v2: > * use assert if do_subchannel_work without any functions being > accepted > * generate unit-exception if ccw-vfio can't handle an otherwise > good channel program (due to extra limitations) > * keep using return values opposed to recording into SubchDev > * split out 'add infrastructure' from 'refactor first handler' > * reworded some commit messanges and comments > * rebased on top of current master > * dropped r-b's and acks because of the magnitude of the > changes > > Testing > ======= > > Nothing happened since v2 except for a quick smoke test. Dong Jia gave v2 > a spin with a focus on vfio-ccw. @Dong Jia I would appreciate some proper > testing, especially regarding the changes in vfio-ccw (patch #3). > > Halil Pasic (7): > s390x/css: be more consistent if broken beyond repair > s390x/css: IO instr handler ending control > s390x: improve error handling for SSCH and RSCH > s390x: refactor error handling for XSCH handler > s390x: refactor error handling for CSCH handler > s390x: refactor error handling for HSCH handler > s390x: refactor error handling for MSCH handler > > hw/s390x/css.c | 163 ++++++++++++-------------------------------- > hw/s390x/s390-ccw.c | 11 ++- > hw/vfio/ccw.c | 28 ++++++-- > include/hw/s390x/css.h | 47 ++++++++++--- > include/hw/s390x/s390-ccw.h | 2 +- > target/s390x/ioinst.c | 136 +++++++----------------------------- > 6 files changed, 132 insertions(+), 255 deletions(-) > Thanks, applied.
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:04:46 +0200 Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > Abstract > ======= > > The basic idea is: tell how to handle an unusual condition where it's > identified, instead of mapping it to an errno (more or less arbitrarily), > then possibly mapping these errnos around, to finally (mentally) map the > errno back to the condition and take appropriate action. > > According to Dong Jia the patch-set also has a functional value: for ccw > pass-through, he is planing to pass-through the instruction completion > information (cc or interruption condition) from the kernel, and this > patch set can pretty much be seen as a preparation for that. > > Changelog > ========= > > Patch 1 should be already applied to Conny's tree. I've included it > nevertheless so guys working on top of current master have everything in > place. > > v2 -> v3: > * somewhat uwillingly traded the type safe struct to a somewhat > type safe enum (because considered ugly) (Thomas, Conny) > * dropped 'template approach' patch which intended to further > consolidate IO inst. handlers having lot's of logic and code in > common (Conny) > * added warning if vfio-ccw ORB does not have the flags required > by the vfio-ccw implementation as suggested (Dong Jia) > * got rid of some unintentional changes (Dong Jia) > * reworded some stuff (comments, commit messages) (Dong Jia) > > v1 -> v2: > * use assert if do_subchannel_work without any functions being > accepted > * generate unit-exception if ccw-vfio can't handle an otherwise > good channel program (due to extra limitations) > * keep using return values opposed to recording into SubchDev > * split out 'add infrastructure' from 'refactor first handler' > * reworded some commit messanges and comments > * rebased on top of current master > * dropped r-b's and acks because of the magnitude of the > changes > > Testing > ======= > > Nothing happened since v2 except for a quick smoke test. Dong Jia gave v2 > a spin with a focus on vfio-ccw. @Dong Jia I would appreciate some proper > testing, especially regarding the changes in vfio-ccw (patch #3). Looks sane to me (if needed, I can fix up the minor things I found). In addition to some testing, I'd appreciate some review from others as well. > > Halil Pasic (7): > s390x/css: be more consistent if broken beyond repair > s390x/css: IO instr handler ending control > s390x: improve error handling for SSCH and RSCH > s390x: refactor error handling for XSCH handler > s390x: refactor error handling for CSCH handler > s390x: refactor error handling for HSCH handler > s390x: refactor error handling for MSCH handler > > hw/s390x/css.c | 163 ++++++++++++-------------------------------- > hw/s390x/s390-ccw.c | 11 ++- > hw/vfio/ccw.c | 28 ++++++-- > include/hw/s390x/css.h | 47 ++++++++++--- > include/hw/s390x/s390-ccw.h | 2 +- > target/s390x/ioinst.c | 136 +++++++----------------------------- > 6 files changed, 132 insertions(+), 255 deletions(-) >
On 10/17/2017 05:13 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:04:46 +0200 > Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >> Abstract >> ======= >> >> The basic idea is: tell how to handle an unusual condition where it's >> identified, instead of mapping it to an errno (more or less arbitrarily), >> then possibly mapping these errnos around, to finally (mentally) map the >> errno back to the condition and take appropriate action. >> >> According to Dong Jia the patch-set also has a functional value: for ccw >> pass-through, he is planing to pass-through the instruction completion >> information (cc or interruption condition) from the kernel, and this >> patch set can pretty much be seen as a preparation for that. >> >> Changelog >> ========= >> >> Patch 1 should be already applied to Conny's tree. I've included it >> nevertheless so guys working on top of current master have everything in >> place. >> >> v2 -> v3: >> * somewhat uwillingly traded the type safe struct to a somewhat >> type safe enum (because considered ugly) (Thomas, Conny) >> * dropped 'template approach' patch which intended to further >> consolidate IO inst. handlers having lot's of logic and code in >> common (Conny) >> * added warning if vfio-ccw ORB does not have the flags required >> by the vfio-ccw implementation as suggested (Dong Jia) >> * got rid of some unintentional changes (Dong Jia) >> * reworded some stuff (comments, commit messages) (Dong Jia) >> >> v1 -> v2: >> * use assert if do_subchannel_work without any functions being >> accepted >> * generate unit-exception if ccw-vfio can't handle an otherwise >> good channel program (due to extra limitations) >> * keep using return values opposed to recording into SubchDev >> * split out 'add infrastructure' from 'refactor first handler' >> * reworded some commit messanges and comments >> * rebased on top of current master >> * dropped r-b's and acks because of the magnitude of the >> changes >> >> Testing >> ======= >> >> Nothing happened since v2 except for a quick smoke test. Dong Jia gave v2 >> a spin with a focus on vfio-ccw. @Dong Jia I would appreciate some proper >> testing, especially regarding the changes in vfio-ccw (patch #3). > > Looks sane to me (if needed, I can fix up the minor things I found). > > In addition to some testing, I'd appreciate some review from others as > well. > Of course, I'm fine with the fixes (won't answer individually). I think both Dong Jia and Pierre have already put enough work in this to be credited with a tag, so I really hope they will get around to review this. I would be especially happy with an Tested-by: Dong Jia since this series is quite under-tested, and the changes in vfio-ccw aren't just minor. Of course I could come up with a test setup myself, but I hope Dong Jia already has one, and he is certainly more involved with vfio-ccw. Regards, Halil >> >> Halil Pasic (7): >> s390x/css: be more consistent if broken beyond repair >> s390x/css: IO instr handler ending control >> s390x: improve error handling for SSCH and RSCH >> s390x: refactor error handling for XSCH handler >> s390x: refactor error handling for CSCH handler >> s390x: refactor error handling for HSCH handler >> s390x: refactor error handling for MSCH handler >> >> hw/s390x/css.c | 163 ++++++++++++-------------------------------- >> hw/s390x/s390-ccw.c | 11 ++- >> hw/vfio/ccw.c | 28 ++++++-- >> include/hw/s390x/css.h | 47 ++++++++++--- >> include/hw/s390x/s390-ccw.h | 2 +- >> target/s390x/ioinst.c | 136 +++++++----------------------------- >> 6 files changed, 132 insertions(+), 255 deletions(-) >> > >
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 18:19:20 +0200 Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On 10/17/2017 05:13 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:04:46 +0200 > > Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > >> Abstract > >> ======= > >> > >> The basic idea is: tell how to handle an unusual condition where it's > >> identified, instead of mapping it to an errno (more or less arbitrarily), > >> then possibly mapping these errnos around, to finally (mentally) map the > >> errno back to the condition and take appropriate action. > >> > >> According to Dong Jia the patch-set also has a functional value: for ccw > >> pass-through, he is planing to pass-through the instruction completion > >> information (cc or interruption condition) from the kernel, and this > >> patch set can pretty much be seen as a preparation for that. > >> > >> Changelog > >> ========= > >> > >> Patch 1 should be already applied to Conny's tree. I've included it > >> nevertheless so guys working on top of current master have everything in > >> place. > >> > >> v2 -> v3: > >> * somewhat uwillingly traded the type safe struct to a somewhat > >> type safe enum (because considered ugly) (Thomas, Conny) > >> * dropped 'template approach' patch which intended to further > >> consolidate IO inst. handlers having lot's of logic and code in > >> common (Conny) > >> * added warning if vfio-ccw ORB does not have the flags required > >> by the vfio-ccw implementation as suggested (Dong Jia) > >> * got rid of some unintentional changes (Dong Jia) > >> * reworded some stuff (comments, commit messages) (Dong Jia) > >> > >> v1 -> v2: > >> * use assert if do_subchannel_work without any functions being > >> accepted > >> * generate unit-exception if ccw-vfio can't handle an otherwise > >> good channel program (due to extra limitations) > >> * keep using return values opposed to recording into SubchDev > >> * split out 'add infrastructure' from 'refactor first handler' > >> * reworded some commit messanges and comments > >> * rebased on top of current master > >> * dropped r-b's and acks because of the magnitude of the > >> changes > >> > >> Testing > >> ======= > >> > >> Nothing happened since v2 except for a quick smoke test. Dong Jia gave v2 > >> a spin with a focus on vfio-ccw. @Dong Jia I would appreciate some proper > >> testing, especially regarding the changes in vfio-ccw (patch #3). > > > > Looks sane to me (if needed, I can fix up the minor things I found). > > > > In addition to some testing, I'd appreciate some review from others as > > well. > > > > Of course, I'm fine with the fixes (won't answer individually). I think > both Dong Jia and Pierre have already put enough work in this to be credited > with a tag, so I really hope they will get around to review this. I would > be especially happy with an Tested-by: Dong Jia since this series is quite > under-tested, and the changes in vfio-ccw aren't just minor. > > Of course I could come up with a test setup myself, but I hope Dong Jia > already has one, and he is certainly more involved with vfio-ccw. FTR: I'll wait until tomorrow for more tags and then go ahead and apply (well, if no problem comes up in the meantime). I need to get a pull request out of the door this week.
* Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [2017-10-17 18:19:20 +0200]: [...] > >> Testing > >> ======= > >> > >> Nothing happened since v2 except for a quick smoke test. Dong Jia gave v2 > >> a spin with a focus on vfio-ccw. @Dong Jia I would appreciate some proper > >> testing, especially regarding the changes in vfio-ccw (patch #3). > > > > Looks sane to me (if needed, I can fix up the minor things I found). > > > > In addition to some testing, I'd appreciate some review from others as > > well. > > > > Of course, I'm fine with the fixes (won't answer individually). I think > both Dong Jia and Pierre have already put enough work in this to be credited > with a tag, so I really hope they will get around to review this. I would > be especially happy with an Tested-by: Dong Jia since this series is quite > under-tested, and the changes in vfio-ccw aren't just minor. > > Of course I could come up with a test setup myself, but I hope Dong Jia > already has one, and he is certainly more involved with vfio-ccw. > Using Conny's s390-next branch + this series (#2-#7), I didn't notice any obvious problem during my fio test. So for the vfio-ccw related part: Tested-by: Dong Jia Shi <bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [...] -- Dong Jia Shi
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 16:23:47 +0800 Dong Jia Shi <bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > * Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [2017-10-17 18:19:20 +0200]: > > [...] > > > >> Testing > > >> ======= > > >> > > >> Nothing happened since v2 except for a quick smoke test. Dong Jia gave v2 > > >> a spin with a focus on vfio-ccw. @Dong Jia I would appreciate some proper > > >> testing, especially regarding the changes in vfio-ccw (patch #3). > > > > > > Looks sane to me (if needed, I can fix up the minor things I found). > > > > > > In addition to some testing, I'd appreciate some review from others as > > > well. > > > > > > > Of course, I'm fine with the fixes (won't answer individually). I think > > both Dong Jia and Pierre have already put enough work in this to be credited > > with a tag, so I really hope they will get around to review this. I would > > be especially happy with an Tested-by: Dong Jia since this series is quite > > under-tested, and the changes in vfio-ccw aren't just minor. > > > > Of course I could come up with a test setup myself, but I hope Dong Jia > > already has one, and he is certainly more involved with vfio-ccw. > > > Using Conny's s390-next branch + this series (#2-#7), I didn't notice > any obvious problem during my fio test. So for the vfio-ccw related > part: > Tested-by: Dong Jia Shi <bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Thanks! To which patches may I add the tag? :)
* Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> [2017-10-18 11:53:10 +0200]: > On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 16:23:47 +0800 > Dong Jia Shi <bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > * Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [2017-10-17 18:19:20 +0200]: > > > > [...] > > > > > >> Testing > > > >> ======= > > > >> > > > >> Nothing happened since v2 except for a quick smoke test. Dong Jia gave v2 > > > >> a spin with a focus on vfio-ccw. @Dong Jia I would appreciate some proper > > > >> testing, especially regarding the changes in vfio-ccw (patch #3). > > > > > > > > Looks sane to me (if needed, I can fix up the minor things I found). > > > > > > > > In addition to some testing, I'd appreciate some review from others as > > > > well. > > > > > > > > > > Of course, I'm fine with the fixes (won't answer individually). I think > > > both Dong Jia and Pierre have already put enough work in this to be credited > > > with a tag, so I really hope they will get around to review this. I would > > > be especially happy with an Tested-by: Dong Jia since this series is quite > > > under-tested, and the changes in vfio-ccw aren't just minor. > > > > > > Of course I could come up with a test setup myself, but I hope Dong Jia > > > already has one, and he is certainly more involved with vfio-ccw. > > > > > Using Conny's s390-next branch + this series (#2-#7), I didn't notice > > any obvious problem during my fio test. So for the vfio-ccw related > > part: > > Tested-by: Dong Jia Shi <bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > Thanks! > > To which patches may I add the tag? :) > The test should cover the vfio-ccw related part in patch #3, I assume. So add it there? -- Dong Jia Shi
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:04:46 +0200 Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > Abstract > ======= > > The basic idea is: tell how to handle an unusual condition where it's > identified, instead of mapping it to an errno (more or less arbitrarily), > then possibly mapping these errnos around, to finally (mentally) map the > errno back to the condition and take appropriate action. > > According to Dong Jia the patch-set also has a functional value: for ccw > pass-through, he is planing to pass-through the instruction completion > information (cc or interruption condition) from the kernel, and this > patch set can pretty much be seen as a preparation for that. > > Changelog > ========= > > Patch 1 should be already applied to Conny's tree. I've included it > nevertheless so guys working on top of current master have everything in > place. > > v2 -> v3: > * somewhat uwillingly traded the type safe struct to a somewhat > type safe enum (because considered ugly) (Thomas, Conny) > * dropped 'template approach' patch which intended to further > consolidate IO inst. handlers having lot's of logic and code in > common (Conny) > * added warning if vfio-ccw ORB does not have the flags required > by the vfio-ccw implementation as suggested (Dong Jia) > * got rid of some unintentional changes (Dong Jia) > * reworded some stuff (comments, commit messages) (Dong Jia) > > v1 -> v2: > * use assert if do_subchannel_work without any functions being > accepted > * generate unit-exception if ccw-vfio can't handle an otherwise > good channel program (due to extra limitations) > * keep using return values opposed to recording into SubchDev > * split out 'add infrastructure' from 'refactor first handler' > * reworded some commit messanges and comments > * rebased on top of current master > * dropped r-b's and acks because of the magnitude of the > changes > > Testing > ======= > > Nothing happened since v2 except for a quick smoke test. Dong Jia gave v2 > a spin with a focus on vfio-ccw. @Dong Jia I would appreciate some proper > testing, especially regarding the changes in vfio-ccw (patch #3). > > Halil Pasic (7): > s390x/css: be more consistent if broken beyond repair > s390x/css: IO instr handler ending control > s390x: improve error handling for SSCH and RSCH > s390x: refactor error handling for XSCH handler > s390x: refactor error handling for CSCH handler > s390x: refactor error handling for HSCH handler > s390x: refactor error handling for MSCH handler > > hw/s390x/css.c | 163 ++++++++++++-------------------------------- > hw/s390x/s390-ccw.c | 11 ++- > hw/vfio/ccw.c | 28 ++++++-- > include/hw/s390x/css.h | 47 ++++++++++--- > include/hw/s390x/s390-ccw.h | 2 +- > target/s390x/ioinst.c | 136 +++++++----------------------------- > 6 files changed, 132 insertions(+), 255 deletions(-) > FYI: I pushed out what I currently have to git://github.com/cohuck/qemu ioinst-retcode Feedback appreciated.
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.