Message ID | 1541009577-29656-7-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | s390: vfio: ap: Using GISA for AP Interrupt | expand |
Hi Pierre, I love your patch! Yet something to improve: [auto build test ERROR on s390/features] [also build test ERROR on next-20181101] [cannot apply to v4.19] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system] url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Pierre-Morel/s390-vfio-ap-Using-GISA-for-AP-Interrupt/20181102-010854 base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/s390/linux.git features config: s390-allmodconfig (attached as .config) compiler: s390x-linux-gnu-gcc (Debian 7.2.0-11) 7.2.0 reproduce: wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O ~/bin/make.cross chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross # save the attached .config to linux build tree GCC_VERSION=7.2.0 make.cross ARCH=s390 All errors (new ones prefixed by >>): >> ERROR: "kvm_s390_gisc_unregister" [drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap.ko] undefined! >> ERROR: "kvm_s390_gisc_register" [drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap.ko] undefined! ERROR: "__node_distance" [drivers/nvme/host/nvme-core.ko] undefined! --- 0-DAY kernel test infrastructure Open Source Technology Center https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all Intel Corporation
On 10/31/18 2:12 PM, Pierre Morel wrote: > Register to the GIB Alert list and retrieve the GAL_ISC > to pass to the GISA registration. > > Unregister on error and when clearing the interrupt. > > Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com> > Signed-off-by: Michael Mueller <mimu@linux.ibm.com> > --- > drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c | 16 +++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c > index f68102163bf4..232168797fb8 100644 > --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c > +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c > @@ -903,16 +903,20 @@ static int ap_ioctl_setirq(struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev, > struct ap_status ap_status = reg2status(0); > unsigned long p; > int ret = -1; > - int apqn; > + int apqn, gal_isc; > uint32_t gd; > > + gal_isc = kvm_s390_gisc_register(matrix_mdev->kvm, matrix_mdev->gisc); > + if (gal_isc < 0) > + return -EIO; > + > apqn = (int)(parm->cmd & 0xffff); > > gd = matrix_mdev->kvm->vcpus[0]->arch.sie_block->gd; > if (gd & 0x01) > aqic_gisa.f = 1; > aqic_gisa.gisc = matrix_mdev->gisc; > - aqic_gisa.isc = GAL_ISC; > + aqic_gisa.isc = gal_isc; > aqic_gisa.ir = 1; > aqic_gisa.gisao = gisa->next_alert >> 4; > > @@ -923,7 +927,11 @@ static int ap_ioctl_setirq(struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev, > parm->status = ret; > > ap_status = reg2status(ret); > - return (ap_status.rc) ? -EIO : 0; > + if (ap_status.rc) { > + kvm_s390_gisc_unregister(matrix_mdev->kvm, matrix_mdev->gisc); > + return -EIO; > + } > + return 0; > } > > static int ap_ioctl_clrirq(struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev, > @@ -946,6 +954,8 @@ static int ap_ioctl_clrirq(struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev, > parm->status = retval; > > ap_status = reg2status(retval); > + /* unregister the IAM from the GIB anyway! */ > + kvm_s390_gisc_unregister(matrix_mdev->kvm, matrix_mdev->gisc); The case statement in patch 4 does not set mdev->gisc, so the presumption here is that VFIO_AP_SET_IRQ has been previously called and has set the value for matrix_mdev->gisc. Is it possible for VFIO_AP_CLEAR_IRQ to get invoked without a prior call to VFIO_AP_SET_IRQ? In any case, shouldn't the GISC value be taken from bits 61-63 of 'parm'? > return (ap_status.rc) ? -EIO : 0; > } > >
On 06/11/2018 21:21, Tony Krowiak wrote: > On 10/31/18 2:12 PM, Pierre Morel wrote: >> Register to the GIB Alert list and retrieve the GAL_ISC >> to pass to the GISA registration. >> >> Unregister on error and when clearing the interrupt. >> >> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com> >> Signed-off-by: Michael Mueller <mimu@linux.ibm.com> >> --- >> drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c | 16 +++++++++++++--- >> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c >> b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c >> index f68102163bf4..232168797fb8 100644 >> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c >> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c >> @@ -903,16 +903,20 @@ static int ap_ioctl_setirq(struct ap_matrix_mdev >> *matrix_mdev, >> struct ap_status ap_status = reg2status(0); >> unsigned long p; >> int ret = -1; >> - int apqn; >> + int apqn, gal_isc; >> uint32_t gd; >> + gal_isc = kvm_s390_gisc_register(matrix_mdev->kvm, >> matrix_mdev->gisc); >> + if (gal_isc < 0) >> + return -EIO; >> + >> apqn = (int)(parm->cmd & 0xffff); >> gd = matrix_mdev->kvm->vcpus[0]->arch.sie_block->gd; >> if (gd & 0x01) >> aqic_gisa.f = 1; >> aqic_gisa.gisc = matrix_mdev->gisc; >> - aqic_gisa.isc = GAL_ISC; >> + aqic_gisa.isc = gal_isc; >> aqic_gisa.ir = 1; >> aqic_gisa.gisao = gisa->next_alert >> 4; >> @@ -923,7 +927,11 @@ static int ap_ioctl_setirq(struct ap_matrix_mdev >> *matrix_mdev, >> parm->status = ret; >> ap_status = reg2status(ret); >> - return (ap_status.rc) ? -EIO : 0; >> + if (ap_status.rc) { >> + kvm_s390_gisc_unregister(matrix_mdev->kvm, matrix_mdev->gisc); >> + return -EIO; >> + } >> + return 0; >> } >> static int ap_ioctl_clrirq(struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev, >> @@ -946,6 +954,8 @@ static int ap_ioctl_clrirq(struct ap_matrix_mdev >> *matrix_mdev, >> parm->status = retval; >> ap_status = reg2status(retval); >> + /* unregister the IAM from the GIB anyway! */ >> + kvm_s390_gisc_unregister(matrix_mdev->kvm, matrix_mdev->gisc); > > The case statement in patch 4 does not set mdev->gisc, so the > presumption here is that VFIO_AP_SET_IRQ has been previously called and > has set the value for matrix_mdev->gisc. Is it possible for > VFIO_AP_CLEAR_IRQ to get invoked without a prior call to right, I will check this. However if the IRQ is not registered there is no problem as we will get an error when unregistering the IRQ and unregistering the gisc 0 which was not registered will fail too. But I think we better check before in case these functions change. > VFIO_AP_SET_IRQ? In any case, shouldn't the GISC value be taken from > bits 61-63 of 'parm'? No this is not possible, the ISC field is not relevant when clearing interrupts. > >> return (ap_status.rc) ? -EIO : 0; >> } >> >
diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c index f68102163bf4..232168797fb8 100644 --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c @@ -903,16 +903,20 @@ static int ap_ioctl_setirq(struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev, struct ap_status ap_status = reg2status(0); unsigned long p; int ret = -1; - int apqn; + int apqn, gal_isc; uint32_t gd; + gal_isc = kvm_s390_gisc_register(matrix_mdev->kvm, matrix_mdev->gisc); + if (gal_isc < 0) + return -EIO; + apqn = (int)(parm->cmd & 0xffff); gd = matrix_mdev->kvm->vcpus[0]->arch.sie_block->gd; if (gd & 0x01) aqic_gisa.f = 1; aqic_gisa.gisc = matrix_mdev->gisc; - aqic_gisa.isc = GAL_ISC; + aqic_gisa.isc = gal_isc; aqic_gisa.ir = 1; aqic_gisa.gisao = gisa->next_alert >> 4; @@ -923,7 +927,11 @@ static int ap_ioctl_setirq(struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev, parm->status = ret; ap_status = reg2status(ret); - return (ap_status.rc) ? -EIO : 0; + if (ap_status.rc) { + kvm_s390_gisc_unregister(matrix_mdev->kvm, matrix_mdev->gisc); + return -EIO; + } + return 0; } static int ap_ioctl_clrirq(struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev, @@ -946,6 +954,8 @@ static int ap_ioctl_clrirq(struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev, parm->status = retval; ap_status = reg2status(retval); + /* unregister the IAM from the GIB anyway! */ + kvm_s390_gisc_unregister(matrix_mdev->kvm, matrix_mdev->gisc); return (ap_status.rc) ? -EIO : 0; }