Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965307AbXAHJxc (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jan 2007 04:53:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965309AbXAHJxc (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jan 2007 04:53:32 -0500 Received: from mtagate4.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.153]:18458 "EHLO mtagate4.de.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965307AbXAHJxb (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jan 2007 04:53:31 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20061231122203.GA11633@osiris.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [S390] cio: fix stsch_reset. To: heicars2@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mschwid2@linux.vnet.ibm.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Build V70_M4_01112005 Beta 3NP January 11, 2005 Message-ID: From: Michael Holzheu Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 10:54:02 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D12ML061/12/M/IBM(Release 6.5.5HF882 | September 26, 2006) at 08/01/2007 10:53:28 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1773 Lines: 53 heicars2@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote on 12/31/2006 01:22:03 PM: > On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 01:31:43AM -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > > In-Reply-To: <20061228103925.GB6270@skybase> > > > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:39:25 +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > > > > > @@ -881,10 +880,18 @@ static void cio_reset_pgm_check_handler( > > > static int stsch_reset(struct subchannel_id schid, volatile > struct schib *addr) > > > { > > > int rc; > > > + register struct subchannel_id reg1 asm ("1") = schid; > > > > > > pgm_check_occured = 0; > > > s390_reset_pgm_handler = cio_reset_pgm_check_handler; > > > - rc = stsch(schid, addr); > > > + > > > + asm volatile( > > > + " stsch 0(%2)\n" > > > + " ipm %0\n" > > > + " srl %0,28" > > > + : "=d" (rc) > > > + : "d" (reg1), "a" (addr), "m" (*addr) : "memory", "cc"); > > > + > > > s390_reset_pgm_handler = NULL; > > > if (pgm_check_occured) > > > return -EIO; > > > > > > Can't you just put a barrier() before the stsch() call? > > Yes, that would work too and would look much nicer. > > I think we should change the reset program check handler, so that it searches > the exception tables. I think that this is really overkill, since having program checks in the reset case will be VERY rare and stsch will probably the only case. I would do that only, if we have a component, which needs that. And I assume, that this will never happen! Michael - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/