On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:16:09 +0100
Pierre Morel <pmo...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 28/02/2019 12:22, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > So, to summarize, the function should do:
> > - Is userspace supposed to emulate everything (!ECA_APIE)? Return
> > -EOPNOTSUPP to hand control to it.
> > - We are now interpreting the instruction in KVM. Do common checks
> > (PSTATE etc.) and inject exceptions, if needed.
> > - Now look at the fc; if there's a handler for it, call that; if not
> > (case does not attempt to call a specific handler, or no handler
> > registered), inject a specification exception. (Do we want pre-checks
> > like for facility 65 here, or in the handler?)
> >
> > That response code 0x01 thingy probably needs to go into the specific
> > handler function, if anywhere (don't know the semantics, sorry).
>
> What do you mean with specific handler function?
>
> If you mean a switch around the FC with static function's call, I agree,
> if you mean a jump into a hook I do not agree.
Ah, ok; so each case (that we want to handle) should call into a
subhandler that does
{
(... check things like facilities ...)
if (!specific_hook)
inject_specif_excp_and_return();
ret = specific_hook();
if (ret)
set_resp_code_0x01(); // or in specific_hook()?
}
?
> >
> > Question: Will the handlers for the individual fcs need to generate
> > different exceptions on their own? I.e., do they need to do injections
> > themselves, or should the calling function possibly inject an exception
> > on error?
>
> There are some specificities.
Ok, should probably done in the subhandlers?
(I hope I don't muddy the waters too much; but basically, I'm poking
around with a stick in the dark :)
