Re: [PATCH] esp.c: remove transfer size check from DMA DATA IN and DATA OUT transfers

["Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@linaro.org>]

On 16/7/24 08:46, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 16/7/24 00:01, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
>> On 15/07/2024 07:48, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/7/24 00:42, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
>>>> The transfer size check was originally added to prevent consecutive 
>>>> DMA TI
>>>> commands from causing an assert() due to an existing SCSI request 
>>>> being in
>>>> progress, but since the last set of updates
>>>
>>> [*]
>>>
>>>> this is no longer required.
>>>>
>>>> Remove the transfer size check from DMA DATA IN and DATA OUT 
>>>> transfers so
>>>> that issuing a DMA TI command when there is no data left to transfer 
>>>> does
>>>> not cause an assert() due to an existing SCSI request being in 
>>>> progress.
>>>>
>>>
>>> [*] See commits f3ace75be8..78d68f312a
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayland@ilande.co.uk>
>>>> Resolves: https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/2415
>>>> ---
>>>>   hw/scsi/esp.c | 4 ++--
>>>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
>>>
>>> Queued adding [*], thanks.
>>
>> Awesome, thanks Phil!
> 
> I'm getting dubious timeout on the msys2 build on the SPARC target:
> https://gitlab.com/philmd/qemu/-/jobs/7347774958
> 
> qemu:qtest+qtest-sparc / qtest-sparc/qom-test time out (After 900.0 
> seconds)
>    1/151 qemu:qtest+qtest-sparc / qtest-sparc/qom-test TIMEOUT        
> 900.38s   exit status 1
> qemu:qtest+qtest-sparc / qtest-sparc/device-introspect-test time out 
> (After 720.0 seconds)
>    2/151 qemu:qtest+qtest-sparc / qtest-sparc/device-introspect-test 
> TIMEOUT        720.23s   exit status 1
> qemu:qtest+qtest-sparc / qtest-sparc/prom-env-test time out (After 360.0 
> seconds)
>    4/151 qemu:qtest+qtest-sparc / qtest-sparc/prom-env-test 
> TIMEOUT        360.17s   exit status 1
> 
> Not sure this patch is the culprit, but since only SPARC is affected,
> likely. I'll retest without this patch.

Same failure without this patch, so not this patch fault ;)