Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <f96b50e2-24ac-4016-d3f1-ffc375516e7c@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Nov 2022 08:47:17 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.13.0
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>
References: <20221117221758.66326-1-scgl@linux.ibm.com>
 <20221117221758.66326-3-scgl@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] Documentation: KVM: s390: Describe
 KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CMPXCHG
In-Reply-To: <20221117221758.66326-3-scgl@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 17/11/2022 23.17, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> Describe the semantics of the new KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CMPXCHG flag for
> absolute vm write memops which allows user space to perform (storage key
> checked) cmpxchg operations on guest memory.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
...
>   Supported flags:
>     * ``KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CHECK_ONLY``
>     * ``KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_SKEY_PROTECTION``
> +  * ``KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CMPXCHG``
> +
> +The semantics of the flags common with logical acesses are as for logical
> +accesses.
> +
> +For write accesses, the KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CMPXCHG might be supported.

I'd maybe merge this with the last sentence:

For write accesses, the KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CMPXCHG flag is supported if 
KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP_EXTENSION has bit 1 (i.e. bit with value 2) set.

... and speaking of that, I wonder whether it's maybe a good idea to 
introduce some #defines for bit 1 / value 2, to avoid the confusion ?

> +In this case, instead of doing an unconditional write, the access occurs only
> +if the target location contains the "size" byte long value pointed to by
> +"old_p". This is performed as an atomic cmpxchg.

I had to read the first sentence twice to understand it ... maybe it's 
easier to understand if you move the "size" part to the second sentence:

In this case, instead of doing an unconditional write, the access occurs 
only if the target location contains value pointed to by "old_p". This is 
performed as an atomic cmpxchg with the length specified by the "size" 
parameter.

?

> "size" must be a power of two
> +up to and including 16.
> +The value at the target location is written to the location "old_p" points to.

IMHO something like this would be better:

The value at the target location is replaced with the value from the 
location that "old_p" points to.

> +If the exchange did not take place because the target value doesn't match the
> +old value KVM_S390_MEMOP_R_NO_XCHG is returned.
> +The KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CMPXCHG flag is supported if KVM_CAP_S390_MEM_OP_EXTENSION
> +has bit 1 (i.e. bit with value 2) set.

  Thomas

PS: Please take my suggestions with a grain of salt ... I'm not a native 
speaker either.