qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] commit 08521e2 breaks SLOF usb boot


From: Alexey Kardashevskiy
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] commit 08521e2 breaks SLOF usb boot
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 22:58:22 +1000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130514 Thunderbird/17.0.6

On 07/19/2013 10:50 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 14/06/2013 12:32, Nikunj A Dadhania ha scritto:
>> Nikunj A Dadhania <address@hidden> writes:
>>> commit 08521e28c7e6e8cc1f53424a0f845f58d2ed9546
>>> Author: Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden>
>>> Date:   Fri May 24 12:54:01 2013 +0200
>>>
>>>     memory: add big endian support to access_with_adjusted_size
>>>     
>>>     This will be used to split 8-byte access down to two four-byte accesses.
>>>     
>>>     Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <address@hidden>
>>>     Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden>
>>>
>>>
>>> If I hack the above funniness in my USB EHCI driver, somewhere down the
>>> qemu crashes at code introduced by this patch:
>>>
>>> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
>>> 0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()
>>> (gdb) bt
>>> #0 0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()
>>> #1 0x00005555557a0ea4 in access_with_adjusted_size (address@hidden, 
>>> address@hidden, address@hidden, access_size_min=<optimized out>, 
>>> access_size_max=<optimized out>,
>>> access=0x5555557a1f80 <memory_region_oldmmio_write_accessor>, 
>>> opaque=0x5555567f8ab8) at /home/nikunj/work/power/code/qemu/memory.c:396
>>> #2 0x00005555557a5ebb in memory_region_dispatch_write (size=1, data=0, 
>>> addr=12, mr=0x5555567f8ab8) at 
>>> /home/nikunj/work/power/code/qemu/memory.c:998
>>>
>>> Reverting this, I can safely boot using a usb-storage device put on ehci 
>>> controller.
>>
>> Just reverting this patch does not help though, i will need to figure
>> which all commits are bad.
> 
> Hi Nikunj,
> 
> can you try the attached patch?
> 
> Alexey, with some luck it may even fix virtio-blk too.


Heh. Bad luck. The behaviour has changed slightly but it still does not work.




-- 
Alexey



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]