[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv3] dma/i82374: avoid double creation of i82374 d
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv3] dma/i82374: avoid double creation of i82374 device
Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:04:10 +0100
Mutt/1.8.3+47 (5f034395e53d) (2017-05-23)
On 16/03/2018 - 11:46:57, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 27.11.2017 09:40, Eduardo Otubo wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 06:44:59PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> >> Hi Eduardo,
> >> On 24.11.2017 14:46, Eduardo Otubo wrote:
> >>> v3:
> >>> * Removed all unecessary local_err
> >>> * Change return of isa_bus_dma() and DMA_init() from void to int8_t,
> >>> returning -EBUSY on error and 0 on success
> >>> * Added qdev_cleanup_nofail() in case isa_bus_dma() returns error. The
> >>> cleanup looks safe, but please review if I didn't miss any detail
> >>> v2:
> >>> * Removed user_creatable=false and replaced by error handling using
> >>> Error **errp and error_propagate();
> >> Version changelog should go below the "---" separator, otherwise it will
> >> be included in the git changelog as well, which is kind of ugly.
> >>> QEMU fails when used with the following command line:
> >>> ./ppc64-softmmu/qemu-system-ppc64 -S -machine 40p,accel=tcg -device
> >>> i82374
> >>> qemu-system-ppc64: hw/isa/isa-bus.c:110: isa_bus_dma: Assertion
> >>> `!bus->dma && !bus->dma' failed.
> >>> Aborted (core dumped)
> >>> The 40p machine type already created the device i82374. If specified in
> >>> the
> >>> command line, it will try to create it again, hence generating the error.
> >>> The
> >>> function isa_bus_dma() isn't supposed to be called twice for the same
> >>> bus. One
> >>> way to avoid this problem is to set user_creatable=false.
> >> You don't do that user_creatable=false here anymore, so please remove it
> >> from the description.
> >>> A possible fix in a near future would be making
> >>> isa_bus_dma()/DMA_init()/i82374_realize() return an error instead of
> >>> asserting
> >>> as well.
> >> You should rephrase that sentence as well.
> > Well, I think one mistake lead to another here. I've always put the
> > changelog
> > before the --- and that's why the old commit message. For example:
> > 2f668be77501c0232a84aafb6a066c9915987f0e. But I guess on that context it
> > made
> > sense to use the changelog since the commit message was too simplistic. I'm
> > gonna fix this on the v3 then, among other thigs that I need to fix. Thanks
> > for
> > the heads up :)
> did you ever send a v4? The problem seems still to persist...
I didn't, I guess I put this on the bottom of my priority list and never got to
I'll send a new version right away.
Thanks for the reminder.