On 12/17/21 14:47, Thomas Huth wrote:

On 17/12/2021 11.31, Nico Boehr wrote:

quoted

We clobber r0 and thus should let the compiler know we're doing so.

Because we change from basic to extended ASM, we need to change the
register names, as %r0 will be interpreted as a token in the assembler
template.

For consistency, we align with the common style in kvm-unit-tests which
is just 0.

Signed-off-by: Nico Boehr <redacted>
---
   s390x/diag288.c | 7 ++++---
   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/s390x/diag288.c b/s390x/diag288.c
index 072c04a5cbd6..da7b06c365bf 100644
--- a/s390x/diag288.c
+++ b/s390x/diag288.c

@@ -94,11 +94,12 @@ static void test_bite(void)
   	/* Arm watchdog */
   	lc->restart_new_psw.mask = extract_psw_mask() & ~PSW_MASK_EXT;
   	diag288(CODE_INIT, 15, ACTION_RESTART);
-	asm volatile("		larl	%r0, 1f\n"
-		     "		stg	%r0, 424\n"
+	asm volatile("		larl	0, 1f\n"
+		     "		stg	0, 424\n"

Would it work to use %%r0 instead?

Yes, but I told him that looks weird, so that one is on me.
@claudio @thomas What's your preferred way of dealing with this?

quoted

   		     "0:	nop\n"
   		     "		j	0b\n"
-		     "1:");
+		     "1:"
+		     : : : "0");
   	report_pass("restart");
   }

Anyway:
Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <redacted>