Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/8] [PATCH RFC v3] s390-qemu: cpu hotplug - Define New SCLP Codes

[Alexander Graf]

Am 16.09.2013 um 09:29 schrieb "Jason J. Herne" <address@hidden>:

> On 09/16/2013 09:53 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>> On 05/09/13 13:25, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 01.08.2013, at 16:12, Jason J. Herne wrote:
>>> 
>>>> From: "Jason J. Herne" <address@hidden>
>>>> 
>>>> Define new SCLP codes to improve code readability.
>>>> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jason J. Herne <address@hidden>
>>>> ---
>>>> hw/s390x/sclp.c         |    2 +-
>>>> include/hw/s390x/sclp.h |    8 ++++++++
>>>> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>> 
>>>> diff --git a/hw/s390x/sclp.c b/hw/s390x/sclp.c
>>>> index 86d6ae0..cb53d7e 100644
>>>> --- a/hw/s390x/sclp.c
>>>> +++ b/hw/s390x/sclp.c
>>>> @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ static void sclp_execute(SCCB *sccb, uint64_t code)
>>>> {
>>>>     S390SCLPDevice *sdev = get_event_facility();
>>>> 
>>>> -    switch (code) {
>>>> +    switch (code & SCLP_NO_CMD_PARM) {
>>> 
>>> switch (code & ~SCLP_CMD_PARM)
>>> 
>>> Or are the upper bits parm as well? In fact, what about the upper 32 bits?
>> 
>> As of now those are ignored by the sclp. So (code & SCLP_NO_CMD_PARM) seems
>> better to me.
> 
> What if I rename it to SCLP_CMD_CODE_MASK?  This removes the negative from 
> the name and keeps the same semantics.

Does the mask include payload information as well or only the cmd code?

Alex

> 
> -- 
> -- Jason J. Herne (address@hidden)
>