On 09/13/2017 12:08 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017 13:01:34 +0200
> Halil Pasic wrote:
>
>> On 09/07/2017 10:02 AM, Dong Jia Shi wrote:
>>> * Cornelia Huck [2017-09-06 13:25:38 +0200]:
>>>
On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 16:27:20 +0800
Dong Jia Shi wrote:
> * Halil P
On Thu, 7 Sep 2017 13:01:34 +0200
Halil Pasic wrote:
> On 09/07/2017 10:02 AM, Dong Jia Shi wrote:
> > * Cornelia Huck [2017-09-06 13:25:38 +0200]:
> >
> >> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 16:27:20 +0800
> >> Dong Jia Shi wrote:
> >>
> >>> * Halil Pasic [2017-09-05 19:20:43 +0200]:
> >>>
>
> >>
On 09/07/2017 10:02 AM, Dong Jia Shi wrote:
> * Cornelia Huck [2017-09-06 13:25:38 +0200]:
>
>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 16:27:20 +0800
>> Dong Jia Shi wrote:
>>
>>> * Halil Pasic [2017-09-05 19:20:43 +0200]:
>>>
On 09/05/2017 05:46 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2017
* Cornelia Huck [2017-09-06 13:25:38 +0200]:
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 16:27:20 +0800
> Dong Jia Shi wrote:
>
> > * Halil Pasic [2017-09-05 19:20:43 +0200]:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 09/05/2017 05:46 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 17:24:19 +0200
> > > > Halil Pasic wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 16:37:08 +0800
Dong Jia Shi wrote:
> * Cornelia Huck [2017-09-05 17:46:06 +0200]:
>
> > On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 17:24:19 +0200
> > Halil Pasic wrote:
> > > In the end I don't care that deeply about vfio-ccw, and this problem
> > > already took me more time than I intended to spe
On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 19:20:43 +0200
Halil Pasic wrote:
> On 09/05/2017 05:46 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 17:24:19 +0200
> > Halil Pasic wrote:
> >> Despite of that we already had a problem of this type: see 1728cff2ab
> >> ("s390x/3270: fix instruction interception handler", 2
On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 16:27:20 +0800
Dong Jia Shi wrote:
> * Halil Pasic [2017-09-05 19:20:43 +0200]:
>
> >
> >
> > On 09/05/2017 05:46 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 17:24:19 +0200
> > > Halil Pasic wrote:
> > >
> > >> My problem with a program check (indicated by SCSW
* Cornelia Huck [2017-09-05 17:46:06 +0200]:
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 17:24:19 +0200
> Halil Pasic wrote:
>
> > My problem with a program check (indicated by SCSW word 2 bit 10) is
> > that, in my reading of the architecture, the semantic behind it is: The
> > channel subsystem (not the cu or devic
* Halil Pasic [2017-09-05 19:20:43 +0200]:
>
>
> On 09/05/2017 05:46 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 17:24:19 +0200
> > Halil Pasic wrote:
> >
> >> My problem with a program check (indicated by SCSW word 2 bit 10) is
> >> that, in my reading of the architecture, the semantic b
On 09/05/2017 05:46 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 17:24:19 +0200
> Halil Pasic wrote:
>
>> My problem with a program check (indicated by SCSW word 2 bit 10) is
>> that, in my reading of the architecture, the semantic behind it is: The
>> channel subsystem (not the cu or device)
On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 17:24:19 +0200
Halil Pasic wrote:
> My problem with a program check (indicated by SCSW word 2 bit 10) is
> that, in my reading of the architecture, the semantic behind it is: The
> channel subsystem (not the cu or device) has detected, that the
> the channel program (previousl
On 09/05/2017 10:02 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 12:41:05 +0200
> Halil Pasic wrote:
>
>> On 08/31/2017 11:19 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:36:02 +0200
>>> Halil Pasic wrote:
>>>
According to the POP a start subchannel instruction (SSCH) returnin
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 12:41:05 +0200
Halil Pasic wrote:
> On 08/31/2017 11:19 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:36:02 +0200
> > Halil Pasic wrote:
> >
> >> According to the POP a start subchannel instruction (SSCH) returning with
> >> cc 1 implies that the subchannel was statu
On 08/31/2017 09:50 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 30.08.2017 18:36, Halil Pasic wrote:
>> According to the POP a start subchannel instruction (SSCH) returning with
>> cc 1 implies that the subchannel was status pending when SSCH executed.
>>
>> Due to a somewhat confusing error handling, where erro
On 08/31/2017 11:19 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:36:02 +0200
> Halil Pasic wrote:
>
>> According to the POP a start subchannel instruction (SSCH) returning with
>> cc 1 implies that the subchannel was status pending when SSCH executed.
>>
>> Due to a somewhat confusing erro
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:36:02 +0200
Halil Pasic wrote:
> According to the POP a start subchannel instruction (SSCH) returning with
> cc 1 implies that the subchannel was status pending when SSCH executed.
>
> Due to a somewhat confusing error handling, where error codes are mapped
> to cc value,
On 30.08.2017 18:36, Halil Pasic wrote:
> According to the POP a start subchannel instruction (SSCH) returning with
> cc 1 implies that the subchannel was status pending when SSCH executed.
>
> Due to a somewhat confusing error handling, where error codes are mapped
> to cc value, sane looking err
According to the POP a start subchannel instruction (SSCH) returning with
cc 1 implies that the subchannel was status pending when SSCH executed.
Due to a somewhat confusing error handling, where error codes are mapped
to cc value, sane looking error codes result in non AR compliant
behavior.
Let
18 matches
Mail list logo
