[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/9] hw/block/pflash_cfi01: Add DeviceReset()

From: Laszlo Ersek
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/9] hw/block/pflash_cfi01: Add DeviceReset() handler
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 13:52:14 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1

Hi Phil,

On 07/02/19 02:12, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> The pflash device lacks a reset() function.
> When a machine is resetted, the flash might be in an
> inconsistent state, leading to unexpected behavior:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678713
> Resolve this issue by adding a DeviceReset() handler.
> Fix also two minor issues, and clean a bit the codebase.
> Since v1: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-05/msg00962.html
> - addressed Laszlo review comments
> Maintainers spam list from:
> ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f $(git grep -El 
> '(pflash_cfi01_register|TYPE_PFLASH_CFI01)')
> Regards,
> Phil.
> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé (9):
>   hw/block/pflash_cfi01: Removed an unused timer
>   hw/block/pflash_cfi01: Use the correct READ_ARRAY value
>   hw/block/pflash_cfi01: Extract pflash_mode_read_array()
>   hw/block/pflash_cfi01: Start state machine as READY to accept commands
>   hw/block/pflash_cfi01: Add the DeviceReset() handler
>   hw/block/pflash_cfi01: Simplify CFI_QUERY processing
>   hw/block/pflash_cfi01: Improve command comments
>   hw/block/pflash_cfi01: Replace DPRINTF by qemu_log_mask(GUEST_ERROR)
>   hw/block/pflash_cfi01: Hold the PRI table offset in a variable
>  hw/block/pflash_cfi01.c | 140 +++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>  hw/block/trace-events   |   1 +
>  2 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)

I'll do some regression-tests with this, using OVMF and ArmVirtQemu.

I don't think I can usefully review the patches without getting lost in
the related spec(s), and I don't have capacity for that.

Until I have regression test results, one question: are the changes to
the device model transparent with regard to migration? (You are not
introducing any compat properties.)


reply via email to

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