Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH-for-4.1 v7 1/1] hw/block/pflash_cfi01: Add missing DeviceReset() handler

[Philippe Mathieu-Daudé]

On 7/22/19 6:51 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> 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).

OK, thanks for your explanation!

> 
> Thanks!
> Laszlo
> 
>>> Thank you a lot again for all your testing, I also noted your steps and
>>> will try to automate them.