On 05/09/13 13:25, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 01.08.2013, at 16:12, Jason J. Herne wrote:
>
>> From: "Jason J. Herne" <jjhe...@us.ibm.com>
>>
>> Define new SCLP codes to improve code readability.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jason J. Herne <jjhe...@us.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> 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.
