On 07/02/19 15:41, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > 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.
Managed to run a light regression-test on aarch64 KVM too, using the ArmVirtQemu fw and an F28 guest. (boot+reboot, without the patches and with the patches; logs compared, behavior compared.) Everything seems fine. Thanks Laszlo > With those caveats: > > Regression-tested-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> > > Thanks > Laszlo >
