Re: [PULL 22/49] hw/pci-host/raven.c: Mark raven_io_ops as implementing unaligned accesses

["Cédric Le Goater" <clg@redhat.com>]

On 2/19/24 15:55, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 at 14:53, Cédric Le Goater <clg@kaod.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/19/24 15:49, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2024, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>>>> From: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
>>>>
>>>> The raven_io_ops MemoryRegionOps is the only one in the source tree
>>>> which sets .valid.unaligned to indicate that it should support
>>>> unaligned accesses and which does not also set .impl.unaligned to
>>>> indicate that its read and write functions can do the unaligned
>>>> handling themselves.  This is a problem, because at the moment the
>>>> core memory system does not implement the support for handling
>>>> unaligned accesses by doing a series of aligned accesses and
>>>> combining them (system/memory.c:access_with_adjusted_size() has a
>>>> TODO comment noting this).
>>>>
>>>> Fortunately raven_io_read() and raven_io_write() will correctly deal
>>>> with the case of being passed an unaligned address, so we can fix the
>>>> missing unaligned access support by setting .impl.unaligned in the
>>>> MemoryRegionOps struct.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 9a1839164c9c8f06 ("raven: Implement non-contiguous I/O region")
>>>> Reviewed-by: Cédric Le Goater <clg@redhat.com>
>>>> Tested-by: Cédric Le Goater <clg@redhat.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Hm, this seems to be missing the actual patch.
>>
>> It's merged already and git knows how to handle this.
> 
> Mmm, though this is the result of "rebased onto a tree that
> already had the commit" rather than "two merges both contain
> the commit", so we end up with a genuinely empty commit upstream,
> which is a bit odd looking, though harmless.

git rebase -i db5f7f9e3ceb and dropping the first patch would
cleanup the empty patch.

C.