On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 12:54:54 +0100
Janosch Frank wrote:
> On 3/17/20 12:05 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 14:14:35 +0100
> > Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >
> >> On 11.03.20 14:21, Janosch Frank wrote:
> >>> SCLP for a protected guest is done over the SIDAD, so we need to
On 3/17/20 12:05 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 14:14:35 +0100
> Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>> On 11.03.20 14:21, Janosch Frank wrote:
>>> SCLP for a protected guest is done over the SIDAD, so we need to use
>>> the s390_cpu_pv_mem_* functions to access the SIDAD instead of gu
On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 14:14:35 +0100
Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 11.03.20 14:21, Janosch Frank wrote:
> > SCLP for a protected guest is done over the SIDAD, so we need to use
> > the s390_cpu_pv_mem_* functions to access the SIDAD instead of guest
> > memory when reading/writing SCBs.
> >
>
On 11.03.20 14:21, Janosch Frank wrote:
> SCLP for a protected guest is done over the SIDAD, so we need to use
> the s390_cpu_pv_mem_* functions to access the SIDAD instead of guest
> memory when reading/writing SCBs.
>
> To not confuse the sclp emulation, we set 0x4000 as the SCCB address,
> s
On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 09:21:44 -0400
Janosch Frank wrote:
> SCLP for a protected guest is done over the SIDAD, so we need to use
> the s390_cpu_pv_mem_* functions to access the SIDAD instead of guest
> memory when reading/writing SCBs.
>
> To not confuse the sclp emulation, we set 0x4000 as the SC
On 3/11/20 2:24 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
>> + * We only need the address to have something valid for the
>> + * service_interrupt call.
>> + */
>> +#define SCLP_PV_DUMMY_ADDR 0x4000
>> +int sclp_service_call_protected(CPUS390XState *env, uint64_t sccb,
>> +uin
> + * We only need the address to have something valid for the
> + * service_interrupt call.
> + */
> +#define SCLP_PV_DUMMY_ADDR 0x4000
> +int sclp_service_call_protected(CPUS390XState *env, uint64_t sccb,
> +uint32_t code)
> +{
> +SCLPDevice *sclp = get_sclp_
