From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44641)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <hdegoede@redhat.com>) id 1UVJEx-0005Sb-Cj
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 06:17:27 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <hdegoede@redhat.com>) id 1UVJEp-00026s-PE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 06:17:23 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:65293)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <hdegoede@redhat.com>) id 1UVJEp-00026N-He
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 06:17:15 -0400
Message-ID: <5179038B.60802@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:20:59 +0200
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <511A53D9.2020704@siemens.com> <511A71E3.7050006@redhat.com>
	<511ABBC4.5030208@redhat.com> <511CD09C.6020400@redhat.com>
	<511CD72D.80502@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <511CD72D.80502@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] uhci: cancel delay for unregistered queues
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
Cc: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

Hi,

On 02/14/2013 01:23 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>    Hi,
>
>>> The only fix I can think of is allocating a receive buffer inside
>>> the UHCI code for read transfers, and copy the result over to the
>>> guest memory when we are re-scanning the schedule, encounter the
>>> completed td and are going to signal its completion to the guest.
>
>> I could take a shot at writing a patch with the proposed fix, but I
>> was sort of waiting on a reaction on the proposal first.
>>
>> Gerd what do you think of my proposed fix ?
>
> That should fix it indeed.  Yes, for uhci we can live with the overhead,
> it's low bandwidth anyway.  No, I don't have a better idea.  Patch is
> very welcome.

Ok, so a bit late I must admit, but I've finally gotten around to writing
the promised fix for this.

I'm going to send it right after this mail.

Jan, can you give it a spin and see if it fixes your issue ?

Regards,

Hans