Am 16.09.2013 um 09:29 schrieb "Jason J. Herne" <jjhe...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>:
> 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.
Does the mask include payload information as well or only the cmd code?
Alex
>
> --
> -- Jason J. Herne (jjhe...@linux.vnet.ibm.com)
>
