From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41635) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V3ozo-0007kO-4d for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:04:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V3ozi-0007h2-9J for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:04:24 -0400 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.3]:53905) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V3ozi-0007gp-0X for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:04:18 -0400 Received: from envy.site ([195.135.221.2]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LvjrE-1U0uf53jtE-017X3r for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:04:16 +0200 Message-ID: <51F6846F.1010907@web.de> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:04:15 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1373988662-19211-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1373988662-19211-4-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <51F68347.409@web.de> <51F683D1.7010006@siemens.com> In-Reply-To: <51F683D1.7010006@siemens.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/3] memory: Return -1 again on reads from unsigned regions List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, stefanha@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Herv=E9_Poussineau?= , Anthony Liguori , Paolo Bonzini Am 29.07.2013 17:01, schrieb Jan Kiszka: > On 2013-07-29 16:59, Andreas Färber wrote: >> Am 16.07.2013 17:31, schrieb Paolo Bonzini: >>> From: Jan Kiszka >>> >>> This restore the behavior prior to b018ddf633 which accidentally changed >>> the return code to 0. Specifically guests probing for register existence >>> were affected by this. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka >>> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini >> >> Unfortunately this negatively affects PReP: OpenHack'Ware booting Debian >> Etch prints: >> >> ERROR: WIN_READ_NATIVE_MAX : status 50 != 0x40 >> >> It does continue if one is patient enough. >> No problems before this commit. >> >> Any ideas, except that OHW may be doing Bad Things? > > Which accesses return different results now, PIO or MMIO? What did they > return prior to b018ddf633? Would I have to locally apply Paolo's MMIO tracing patches to find out? My guess is as good as yours otherwise... ;) Andreas