[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH-for-4.1 v7 1/1] hw/block/pflash_cfi01: Add missi

From: Laszlo Ersek
Subject: Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH-for-4.1 v7 1/1] hw/block/pflash_cfi01: Add missing DeviceReset() handler
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 18:51:35 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1

On 07/19/19 18:19, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> Hi Laszlo,
> On 7/18/19 9:35 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> On 7/18/19 8:38 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>> On 07/18/19 17:03, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>>> On 07/18/19 12:48, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>>>> To avoid incoherent states when the machine resets (see but report
> [...]>>> (3) Using OVMF IA32X64 (including the edk2 SMM stack), I've
>>>> regression-tested this patch, on top of v4.1.0-rc1, with KVM. As follows:
>>>> (3a) Normal reboot from the UEFI shell ("reset -c" command)
>>>> (3b) Normal reboot from the Linux guest prompt ("reboot" command)
>>>> (3c1) Reset as part of ACPI S3 suspend/resume
>>>> (3c2) then use "efibootmgr -n / -N" to write to pflash (by virtue of
>>>> setting / deleting the standardized BootNext UEFI variable)
>>>> (3d1) Boot to setup TUI with SB enabled
>>>> (3d2) erase Platform Key in setup TUI (disables SB)
>>>> (3d3) reboot from within setup TUI
>>>> (3d4) proceed to UEFI shell
>>>> (3d5) enable SB with EnrollDefaultKeys.efi
>>>> (3d6) reboot from UEFI shell
>>>> (3d7) proceeed to Linux guest
>>>> (3d8) verify SB enablement (dmesg, "mokutil --sb-state")
>>>> (As an added exercise, step (3d4) triggered an "FTW" (fault tolerant
>>>> write) "reclaim" (basically a defragmentation of the journaled
>>>> "filesystem" that the firmware keeps in the flash, as a logical "middle
>>>> layer"), and that worked fine too.)
>>>> Regression-tested-by: Laszlo Ersek <address@hidden>
>>>> (4) I plan to provide R-t-b in the evening from aarch64 KVM too, using
>>>> the edk2 ArmVirtQemu firmware. Only the first two steps from (3) will be
>>>> covered (no ACPI S3, no SB).
>>> Regression-tested-by: Laszlo Ersek <address@hidden>
> Patchwork doesn't recognize your R-t-b tag:
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1133671/
> Should I change it for a Tested-by, or add as it?

Please pick it up manually, as it is, if that's possible.

I prefer to dedicate "Tested-by" to cases where my before-after
comparison highlights a difference (i.e., bug disappears, or feature
appears). I dedicate "R-t-b" to cases where nothing observable changes
(in accordance with my expectation).


>> Thank you a lot again for all your testing, I also noted your steps and
>> will try to automate them.
>> Best regards,
>> Phil.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]