On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 5:03 AM Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 at 16:56, Nabih Estefan <nabiheste...@google.com> wrote: > > > > v2: used ldl_le_p and lduw_l_p instead of memcpy as per upstream > > suggestion. > > > > ``` > > ../tests/qtest/libqos/igb.c:106:5: runtime error: load of misaligned > > address 0x562040be8e33 for type 'uint32_t', which requires 4 byte alignment > > ``` > > Instead of straight casting the uint8_t array, we use memcpy to assure > > alignment is correct against uint32_t and uint16_t. > > > > Signed-off-by: Nabih Estefan <nabiheste...@google.com> > > --- > > tests/qtest/libqos/igb.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tests/qtest/libqos/igb.c b/tests/qtest/libqos/igb.c > > index f40c4ec4cd..2e0bb58617 100644 > > --- a/tests/qtest/libqos/igb.c > > +++ b/tests/qtest/libqos/igb.c > > @@ -104,10 +104,10 @@ static void igb_pci_start_hw(QOSGraphObject *obj) > > e1000e_macreg_write(&d->e1000e, E1000_RDT(0), 0); > > e1000e_macreg_write(&d->e1000e, E1000_RDH(0), 0); > > e1000e_macreg_write(&d->e1000e, E1000_RA, > > - le32_to_cpu(*(uint32_t *)address)); > > + ldl_le_p((uint32_t *)address)); > > e1000e_macreg_write(&d->e1000e, E1000_RA + 4, > > E1000_RAH_AV | E1000_RAH_POOL_1 | > > - le16_to_cpu(*(uint16_t *)(address + 4))); > > + lduw_le_p((uint16_t *)(address + 4))); > > ldl_le_p() etc take a 'void *' -- the casts here should not be > necessary.
Should I send a new patch to fix this if it's already been queued to testing/next? Or can it be fixed directly in that branch? Thanks, Nabih > > thanks > -- PMM
