[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 15:41:26 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1

On 07/02/19 13:52, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> 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.)

I didn't test migration.

With OVMF, I performed my usual Linux guest tests (partly described at
I found no problems / discrepancies, in either guest behavior or
firmware logs.

With ArmVirtQemu, I meant to test on KVM (pflash used to be really
sensitive to KVM<->TCG differences), but my aarch64 hardware is
apparently dying, and I wouldn't like to spend a day just to provision a
remote aarch64 box. So, no test results on aarch64.

With those caveats:

Regression-tested-by: Laszlo Ersek <address@hidden>


reply via email to

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