On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 at 09:50, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>
> On 20/1/22 16:16, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > The exynos4210_uart_post_load() function assumes that it is passed
> > the Exynos4210UartState, but it has been attached to the
> > VMStateDescription for the Exynos4210UartFIFO type. The re
On 20/1/22 16:16, Peter Maydell wrote:
The exynos4210_uart_post_load() function assumes that it is passed
the Exynos4210UartState, but it has been attached to the
VMStateDescription for the Exynos4210UartFIFO type. The result is a
SIGSEGV when attempting to load VM state for any machine type
inc
On 1/20/22 7:16 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
The exynos4210_uart_post_load() function assumes that it is passed
the Exynos4210UartState, but it has been attached to the
VMStateDescription for the Exynos4210UartFIFO type. The result is a
SIGSEGV when attempting to load VM state for any machine type
i
The exynos4210_uart_post_load() function assumes that it is passed
the Exynos4210UartState, but it has been attached to the
VMStateDescription for the Exynos4210UartFIFO type. The result is a
SIGSEGV when attempting to load VM state for any machine type
including this device.
Fix the bug by attac