On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 09:23:23 +0100
Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 03/05/2018 04:27 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 10:44:46 +0100
> > Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 02/23/2018 06:42 PM, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> >>> Extend the SCLP event masks to 64 bits.
> >>>
> >>> Notice that using any of the new bits results in a state that cannot be
> >>> migrated to an older version.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbre...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> hw/s390x/event-facility.c | 56
> >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> >>> include/hw/s390x/event-facility.h | 2 +-
> >>> 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/hw/s390x/event-facility.c b/hw/s390x/event-facility.c
> >>> index e04ed9f..c3e39ee 100644
> >>> --- a/hw/s390x/event-facility.c
> >>> +++ b/hw/s390x/event-facility.c
> >>> @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ struct SCLPEventFacility {
> >>> SysBusDevice parent_obj;
> >>> SCLPEventsBus sbus;
> >>> /* guest's receive mask */
> >>> - sccb_mask_t receive_mask;
> >>> + uint32_t receive_mask_pieces[2];
> >>
> >>
> >> Before the change, we basically use be32_to_cpu to transfer the byte field
> >> into a cpu
> >> endianess value. In the end it is actually a bitfield, but for compat we
> >> need to keep
> >> he reversal. So it will be hard to get this fixed without some kind of
> >> ugliness.
> >
> > Could we also use a compat mask callback/handler for older machines and
> > switch to 64 bit handlers for the default case? Probably would be even
> > more ugly, though.
>
> Claudio had a version with a pre/post/load/save handler. Claudio can you
> repost this
> version so that we can have a look what is "less ugly"?
>
Would that other version be independent of the first two patches (i.e.,
only replace this patch)?
I would like to apply patch 1 as it is a fix, and patch 2 seems
uncontroversial as a cleanup.
