Re: [qemu-s390x] [PATCH-for-4.2 v1 5/9] s390x/mmu: Implement access-exception-fetch/store-indication facility

[David Hildenbrand]

On 19.08.19 14:22, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 8/19/19 2:16 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 8/5/19 5:29 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> We always have to indicate whether it is a fetch or a store for all access
>>> exceptions. This is only missing for LAP exceptions.
>>
>> Do we really need this for LAP, too? If I get figure 3-5 "Enhanced
>> Suppression-on-Protection Results" right, these bits are not set for LAP
>> exceptions...? Do I miss something?
> 
> I was looking at an older version of the PoP ... the table that I mean
> is "Figure 3-8. Enhanced Suppression-on-Protection Facility 2 Results"
> in SA22-7832-11.
> 
>  Thomas
> 

I think that table only states that if 56==60==61==0, then we might have
either KCP or LAP ("Presented if TEID details are not available" - but
as we have TEID information available, we can just set 56=1 and 60=61=0
(== LAP), or am I missing something?

-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb