From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 WIP 3/3] disable vhost_verify_ring_mappings check Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 11:51:41 +0200 Message-ID: <20130320095140.GA16615@redhat.com> References: <1363653285-23776-1-git-send-email-asias@redhat.com> <1363653285-23776-4-git-send-email-asias@redhat.com> <20130319084057.GB24393@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> <1363744628.13070.28.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, target-devel@vger.kernel.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , Paolo Bonzini To: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1363744628.13070.28.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 06:57:08PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 09:40 +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 08:34:45AM +0800, Asias He wrote: > > > --- > > > hw/vhost.c | 2 ++ > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/hw/vhost.c b/hw/vhost.c > > > index 4d6aee3..0c52ec4 100644 > > > --- a/hw/vhost.c > > > +++ b/hw/vhost.c > > > @@ -421,10 +421,12 @@ static void vhost_set_memory(MemoryListener *listener, > > > return; > > > } > > > > > > +#if 0 > > > if (dev->started) { > > > r = vhost_verify_ring_mappings(dev, start_addr, size); > > > assert(r >= 0); > > > } > > > +#endif > > > > Please add a comment to explain why. > > > > Btw, the output that Asias added in the failure case at the behest of > MST is here: > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/target-devel/msg04077.html Yes I suspected we could get l > ring_size, but this is not the case here. > MST seemed to think it may be a bug in cpu_physical_memory_map, but as > this worked with the original vhost-scsi code it would seem to indicate > something else at fault.. > > I'll be comparing what the original code did vs. vhost-scsi-pci to track > this down, but any extra ideas to track is down is appreciated. ;) > > --nab