From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60105) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eBeLW-0006kW-Tw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 06 Nov 2017 05:09:35 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eBeLW-0007Z1-1t for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 06 Nov 2017 05:09:34 -0500 References: <1508772937-21054-1-git-send-email-eric.auger@redhat.com> <1508772937-21054-2-git-send-email-eric.auger@redhat.com> From: Auger Eric Message-ID: <0686ba45-7a77-f5b0-537d-07e2c3438e5e@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 11:09:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC v2 1/4] hw/intc/arm_gicv3_its: Don't abort on table save failure List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: eric.auger.pro@gmail.com, qemu-arm , QEMU Developers , wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com, Vijay Kilari , Andrew Jones , Wei Huang , Juan Quintela , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , Christoffer Dall , wu.wubin@huawei.com Hi Peter, On 02/11/2017 13:53, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 23 October 2017 at 16:35, Eric Auger wrote: >> The ITS is not fully properly reset at the moment. Caches are >> not emptied. >> >> After a reset, in case we attempt to save the state before >> the bound devices have registered their MSIs and after the >> 1st level table has been allocated by the ITS driver >> (device BASER is valid), the first level entries are still >> invalid. If the device cache is not empty (devices registered >> before the reset), vgic_its_save_device_tables fails with -EINVAL. >> This causes a QEMU abort(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger >> Reported-by: wanghaibin >> >> --- >> >> this patch would deserve being cc'ed stable (2.10) >> This goes along with patches 1-5 of >> [PATCH v5 00/10] vITS Migration fixes and reset, candidate >> for being cc'ed stable >> --- > > Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell > > We could/should put this patch into qemu now, right (it's > the rest of the series that's RFC) ? Yes that's correct. Thanks Eric > > thanks > -- PMM >