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 <https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/Testing-SMM-with-QEMU,-KVM-and-libvirt#tests-to-perform-in-the-installed-guest-fedora-26-guest>). 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 <ler...@redhat.com> Thanks Laszlo
