Re: [PATCH 06/32] s390/tools: Generate bitmap of nullified program checks

[Ilya Leoshkevich]

On 10/1/26 12:32, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> Add PGM_CHECKS_NULLIFIED bitmap to gen_bitmaps and add a --pgmcheck
> command line option to generate the pgmcheck-defs.h header file. The
> bitmap specifies which program checks are nullified, and will be used
> with future changes.
>
> Change gen_bitmaps.c so it can create bitmaps with different bit
> numbering: MSB0 bit numbering like before (most significant bit is
> bit 0), and LSB0 bit numbering (least significant bit is bit 0),
> which is used for the new bitmap.
>
> Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <hca@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   arch/s390/include/asm/Kbuild  |  1 +
>   arch/s390/tools/Makefile      |  8 +++++-
>   arch/s390/tools/gen_bitmaps.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>   3 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

[...]

> +static struct bitmap_def pgm_check_defs[] = {
> +	{
> +		.name = "PGM_CHECKS_NULLIFIED",
> +		.inverted = 0,
> +		.maxbit = 127,
> +		.bits = (int[]){
> +			0x10, /* Segment Translation */
> +			0x11, /* Page Translation */
> +			0x16, /* Trace Table */
> +			0x20, /* AFX Translation */
> +			0x21, /* ASX Translation */
> +			0x22, /* LX Translation */
> +			0x23, /* EX Translation */
> +			0x24, /* Primary Authority */
> +			0x25, /* Secondary Authority */
> +			0x26, /* LFX Translation */
> +			0x27, /* LSX Translation */
> +			0x29, /* ALEN Translation */
> +			0x2a, /* ALE Sequence */
> +			0x2b, /* ASTE Validity */
> +			0x2c, /* ASTE Sequence */
> +			0x2d, /* Extended Authority */
> +			0x2e, /* LSTE Sequence */
> +			0x2f, /* ASTE Instance */
> +			0x30, /* Stack Full */
> +			0x31, /* Stack Empty */
> +			0x32, /* Stack Specification */
> +			0x33, /* Stack Type */
> +			0x34, /* Stack Operation */
> +			0x38, /* ASCE Type */
> +			0x39, /* Region First Translation */
> +			0x3a, /* Region Second Translation */
> +			0x3b, /* Region Third Translation */
> +			0x3d, /* Secure Storage Access */
> +			-1  /* END */
> +		}
> +	},
> +};

Do we want Crypto-Operation Exception (0x119) here?


In any case:

Reviewed-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>