On 21/05/2020 07.44, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 14/05/2020 14.37, Janosch Frank wrote: >> ZMODE has a lot of ambiguity with the ESAME architecture mode, but is >> actually 64 bit addressing. >> >> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <fran...@linux.ibm.com> >> Reviewed-by: Pierre Morel <pmo...@linux.ibm.com> >> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> >> --- >> pc-bios/s390-ccw/dasd-ipl.c | 3 +-- >> pc-bios/s390-ccw/s390-arch.h | 2 +- >> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/dasd-ipl.c b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/dasd-ipl.c >> index 0fc879bb8e..b932531e6f 100644 >> --- a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/dasd-ipl.c >> +++ b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/dasd-ipl.c >> @@ -229,7 +229,6 @@ void dasd_ipl(SubChannelId schid, uint16_t cutype) >> run_ipl2(schid, cutype, ipl2_addr); >> >> /* Transfer control to the guest operating system */ >> - pswl->mask |= PSW_MASK_EAMODE; /* Force z-mode */ >> - pswl->addr |= PSW_MASK_BAMODE; /* ... */ >> + pswl->mask |= PSW_MASK_64; /* Force 64 bit addressing */ > > This is not only a rename (as announced in the subject), but also a > change in behavior since you now do not change pswl->addr anymore. So > this is even a bug fix? Could you please mention this in the patch > description, too?
Ah, wait, pswl is of type PSWLegacy, and ->mask and ->addr are of type uint32_t here! So it seems wrong to use a 64-bit value for mask here, doesn't it? Thomas
