On 09/16/2013 09:53 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
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.
What if I rename it to SCLP_CMD_CODE_MASK? This removes the negative
from the name and keeps the same semantics.
--
-- Jason J. Herne (jjhe...@linux.vnet.ibm.com)
