From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48616) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cTJyZ-0007aL-C0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:58:24 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cTJyV-0005yP-GY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:58:23 -0500 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.65]:36176) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cTJyU-0005pb-UY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:58:19 -0500 Message-ID: <587D8832.7050900@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 10:57:54 +0800 From: "Longpeng (Mike)" MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1484387976-167704-1-git-send-email-longpeng2@huawei.com> <20170116141307.GG14681@stefanha-x1.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20170116141307.GG14681@stefanha-x1.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qtest: virtio: zeroed last VRingDesc after allocate List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: stefanha@redhat.com, lvivier@redhat.com, eblake@redhat.com, peter.maydell@linaro.org, groug@kaod.org, arei.gonglei@huawei.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Hi Stefan, On 2017/1/16 22:13, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 05:59:36PM +0800, Longpeng(Mike) wrote: ...... >> diff --git a/tests/libqos/virtio.c b/tests/libqos/virtio.c >> index ec30cb9..b29c69e 100644 >> --- a/tests/libqos/virtio.c >> +++ b/tests/libqos/virtio.c >> @@ -171,12 +171,20 @@ QVRingIndirectDesc *qvring_indirect_desc_setup(QVirtioDevice *d, >> for (i = 0; i < elem - 1; ++i) { >> /* indirect->desc[i].addr */ >> writeq(indirect->desc + (16 * i), 0); >> + /* indirect->desc[i].len */ >> + writeq(indirect->desc + (16 * i) + 8, 0); > > The len field is 32 bits long. Please use writel(). > >> /* indirect->desc[i].flags */ >> writew(indirect->desc + (16 * i) + 12, VRING_DESC_F_NEXT); >> /* indirect->desc[i].next */ >> writew(indirect->desc + (16 * i) + 14, i + 1); >> } >> >> + /* zeroed last element */ >> + writeq(indirect->desc + (16 * i), 0); /* addr */ >> + writeq(indirect->desc + (16 * i) + 8, 0); /*len*/ > > Same here. OK. I will fix it in V2. -- Regards, Longpeng(Mike)