| Message ID | 51FCBFD2.3030401@web.de |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 3 August 2013 09:31, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de> wrote: > From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> > > This reverts commit 9b8c69243585a32d14b9bb9fcd52c37b0b5a1b71. > > The commit was wrong: We only return -1 on invalid accesses, not on > valid but unbacked ones. This broke various corner cases. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> This revert fixes the regression in the 'musicpal' board. Presumably these two patches should go into 1.6 since it is a regression fix... cc'ing Anthony. Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> -- PMM
On 2013-08-08 17:23, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 3 August 2013 09:31, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de> wrote: >> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> >> >> This reverts commit 9b8c69243585a32d14b9bb9fcd52c37b0b5a1b71. >> >> The commit was wrong: We only return -1 on invalid accesses, not on >> valid but unbacked ones. This broke various corner cases. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> > > This revert fixes the regression in the 'musicpal' board. > > Presumably these two patches should go into 1.6 since it is > a regression fix... cc'ing Anthony. > > Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> Yes, for 1.6 definitely. Sorry, forgot the proper CCing/tagging. Thanks, Jan
Am 08.08.2013 17:23, schrieb Peter Maydell: > On 3 August 2013 09:31, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de> wrote: >> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> >> >> This reverts commit 9b8c69243585a32d14b9bb9fcd52c37b0b5a1b71. >> >> The commit was wrong: We only return -1 on invalid accesses, not on >> valid but unbacked ones. This broke various corner cases. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> > > This revert fixes the regression in the 'musicpal' board. > > Presumably these two patches should go into 1.6 since it is > a regression fix... cc'ing Anthony. Since no one has spoken up with a concrete use case that breaks when having the PIO region opaque, I agree this seems the best solution we have for 1.6. But given the musicpal issue you have raised, I would ask Paolo or Jan to squash these two patches together to avoid a git-bisect regression. Thanks, Andreas > > Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> > > -- PMM >
On 8 August 2013 17:46, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote: > Since no one has spoken up with a concrete use case that breaks when > having the PIO region opaque, I agree this seems the best solution we > have for 1.6. But given the musicpal issue you have raised, I would ask > Paolo or Jan to squash these two patches together to avoid a git-bisect > regression. Not sure what you have in mind here -- musicpal is an ARM board, and no ARM system should ever touch the system_io region at all, so for musicpal patch 1/2 has no effect and we care only about 2/2. -- PMM
Am 08.08.2013 18:48, schrieb Peter Maydell: > On 8 August 2013 17:46, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote: >> Since no one has spoken up with a concrete use case that breaks when >> having the PIO region opaque, I agree this seems the best solution we >> have for 1.6. But given the musicpal issue you have raised, I would ask >> Paolo or Jan to squash these two patches together to avoid a git-bisect >> regression. > > Not sure what you have in mind here -- musicpal is an ARM > board, and no ARM system should ever touch the system_io > region at all, so for musicpal patch 1/2 has no effect > and we care only about 2/2. Sorry, mixed up your other reply with this non-threaded series - thought you were saying 1/2 introduced the regression, but the regression is already in qemu.git I understand just like for prep. Andreas
diff --git a/memory.c b/memory.c index ac6f3c6..7a0251d 100644 --- a/memory.c +++ b/memory.c @@ -873,7 +873,7 @@ static uint64_t unassigned_mem_read(void *opaque, hwaddr addr, if (current_cpu != NULL) { cpu_unassigned_access(current_cpu, addr, false, false, 0, size); } - return -1ULL; + return 0; } static void unassigned_mem_write(void *opaque, hwaddr addr,