qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 5/7] s390x: refactor error handling for CSCH


From: Cornelia Huck
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 5/7] s390x: refactor error handling for CSCH handler
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 11:11:21 +0200

On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 14:14:45 +0800
Dong Jia Shi <address@hidden> wrote:

> * Halil Pasic <address@hidden> [2017-10-17 16:04:51 +0200]:
> 
> > Simplify the error handling of the cSCH.  Let the code detecting the
> > condition tell (in a less ambiguous way) how it's to be handled. No
> > changes in behavior.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <address@hidden>
> > ---  
> [...]
> 
> > diff --git a/target/s390x/ioinst.c b/target/s390x/ioinst.c
> > index 4ad07e9181..fd659e77a5 100644
> > --- a/target/s390x/ioinst.c
> > +++ b/target/s390x/ioinst.c
> > @@ -60,8 +60,6 @@ void ioinst_handle_csch(S390CPU *cpu, uint64_t reg1)
> >  {
> >      int cssid, ssid, schid, m;
> >      SubchDev *sch;
> > -    int ret = -ENODEV;
> > -    int cc;
> > 
> >      if (ioinst_disassemble_sch_ident(reg1, &m, &cssid, &ssid, &schid)) {
> >          program_interrupt(&cpu->env, PGM_OPERAND, 4);
> > @@ -69,15 +67,11 @@ void ioinst_handle_csch(S390CPU *cpu, uint64_t reg1)
> >      }
> >      trace_ioinst_sch_id("csch", cssid, ssid, schid);
> >      sch = css_find_subch(m, cssid, ssid, schid);
> > -    if (sch && css_subch_visible(sch)) {
> > -        ret = css_do_csch(sch);
> > -    }
> > -    if (ret == -ENODEV) {
> > -        cc = 3;
> > -    } else {
> > -        cc = 0;
> > +    if (!sch || !css_subch_visible(sch)) {
> > +        setcc(cpu, 3);  
> Same question here.
> 
> > +        return;
> >      }
> > -    setcc(cpu, cc);
> > +    setcc(cpu, css_do_csch(sch));
> >  }
> > 
> >  void ioinst_handle_hsch(S390CPU *cpu, uint64_t reg1)
> > -- 
> > 2.13.5
> >   
> 
> If we agree to replace 3 with IOINST_CC_NOT_OPERATIONAL, maybe Conny
> could fix it. Or we can do that in a following cleanup patch?

Switching it to IOINST_CC_NOT_OPERATIONAL is certainly good, but I
think I've already done enough editing for this series...

A patch on top would be the best way.

> 
> W/ or w/o the fix, for now:
> Reviewed-by: Dong Jia Shi <address@hidden>
> 




reply via email to

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