bdrv_replace_child() has only one caller, the second argument is
unused. Inline it now. This triggers deletion of some more unused
interfaces.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-34-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
bdrv_check_perm_common() has only one caller, so no more sense in
"common".
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-33-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-32-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Move bdrv_reopen_multiple to new paradigm of permission update:
first update graph relations, then do refresh the permissions.
We have to modify reopen process in file-posix driver: with new scheme
we don't have prepared permissions in raw_reopen_prepare(), so we
should reconfigure fd in raw_check_perm(). Still this seems more native
and simple anyway.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-31-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
During reopen we may add backing bs from other aio context, which may
lead to changing original context of top bs.
We are going to move graph modification to prepare stage. So, it will
be possible that bdrv_flush() in bdrv_reopen_prepare called on bs in
non-original aio context, which we didn't aquire which leads to crash.
To avoid this problem move bdrv_flush() to be a separate reopen stage
before bdrv_reopen_prepare().
This doesn't seem correct to acquire only one aio context and not all
contexts participating in reopen. But it's not obvious how to do it
correctly, keeping in mind:
1. rules of bdrv_set_aio_context_ignore() that requires new_context
lock not being held
2. possible deadlocks because of holding all (or several?) AioContext
locks
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-30-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Split out no-perm part of bdrv_set_backing_hd() as a separate
transaction action. Note the in case of existing BdrvChild we reuse it,
not recreate, just to do less actions.
We don't need to create extra reference to backing_hd as we don't lose
it in bdrv_attach_child().
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-29-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
To be used in further commit.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-28-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
To be used in the further commit.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-27-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
This argument is always NULL. Drop it.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-26-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
We don't need this workaround anymore: bdrv_append is already smart
enough and we can use new bdrv_drop_filter().
This commit efficiently reverts also recent 705dde27c6, which
checked .active on io path. Still it said that the problem should be
theoretical. And the logic of filter removement is changed anyway.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-25-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Using bdrv_replace_node() for removing filter is not good enough: it
keeps child reference of the filter, which may conflict with original
top node during permission update.
Instead let's create new interface, which will do all graph
modifications first and then update permissions.
Let's modify bdrv_replace_node_common(), allowing it additionally drop
backing chain child link pointing to new node. This is quite
appropriate for bdrv_drop_intermediate() and makes possible to add
new bdrv_drop_filter() as a simple wrapper.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-24-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-23-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
bdrv_append is not very good for inserting filters: it does extra
permission update as part of bdrv_set_backing_hd(). During this update
filter may conflict with other parents of top_bs.
Instead, let's first do all graph modifications and after it update
permissions.
append-greedy-filter test-case in test-bdrv-graph-mod is now works, so
move it out of debug option.
Note: bdrv_append() is still only works for backing-child based
filters. It's something to improve later.
Note2: we use the fact that bdrv_append() is used to append new nodes,
without backing child, so we don't need frozen check and inherits_from
logic from bdrv_set_backing_hd().
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-22-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Split part of bdrv_replace_node_common() to be used separately.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-21-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Split no-perm part of bdrv_attach_child as separate transaction action.
It will be used in later commits.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-20-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Split out no-perm part of bdrv_root_attach_child() into separate
transaction action. bdrv_root_attach_child() now moves to new
permission update paradigm: first update graph relations then update
permissions.
qsd-jobs test output updated. Seems now permission update goes in
another order. Still, the test comment say that we only want to check
that command doesn't crash, and it's still so.
Error message is a bit misleading as it looks like job was added first.
But actually in new paradigm of graph update we can't distinguish such
things. We should update the error message, but let's not do it now.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-19-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
inore_children thing doesn't help to track all propagated permissions
of children we want to ignore. The simplest way to correctly update
permissions is update graph first and then do permission update. In
this case we just referesh permissions for the whole subgraph (in
topological-sort defined order) and everything is correctly calculated
automatically without any ignore_children.
So, refactor bdrv_replace_node_common to first do graph update and then
refresh the permissions.
Test test_parallel_exclusive_write() now pass, so move it out of
debugging "if".
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-18-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
To be used in the following commit.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-17-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Add new interface, allowing use of existing node list. It will be used
to fix bdrv_replace_node() in the further commit.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-16-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Refactor calling driver callbacks to a separate transaction action to
be used later.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-15-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Rewrite bdrv_check_perm(), bdrv_abort_perm_update() and bdrv_set_perm()
to update nodes in topological sort order instead of simple DFS. With
topologically sorted nodes, we update a node only when all its parents
already updated. With DFS it's not so.
Consider the following example:
A -+
| |
| v
| B
| |
v |
C<-+
A is parent for B and C, B is parent for C.
Obviously, to update permissions, we should go in order A B C, so, when
we update C, all parent permissions already updated. But with current
approach (simple recursion) we can update in sequence A C B C (C is
updated twice). On first update of C, we consider old B permissions, so
doing wrong thing. If it succeed, all is OK, on second C update we will
finish with correct graph. But if the wrong thing failed, we break the
whole process for no reason (it's possible that updated B permission
will be less strict, but we will never check it).
Also new approach gives a way to simultaneously and correctly update
several nodes, we just need to run bdrv_topological_dfs() several times
to add all nodes and their subtrees into one topologically sorted list
(next patch will update bdrv_replace_node() in this manner).
Test test_parallel_perm_update() is now passing, so move it out of
debugging "if".
We also need to support ignore_children in
bdrv_parent_perms_conflict()
For test 283 order of conflicting parents check is changed.
Note also that in bdrv_check_perm() we don't check for parents conflict
at root bs, as we may be in the middle of permission update in
bdrv_reopen_multiple(). bdrv_reopen_multiple() will be updated soon.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-14-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Each of them has only one caller. Open-coding simplifies further
pemission-update system changes.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Alberto Garcia <berto@igalia.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-13-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
We are going to drop recursive bdrv_child_* functions, so stop use them
in bdrv_child_try_set_perm() as a first step.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-12-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Split out non-recursive parts, and refactor as block graph transaction
action.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-11-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Add additional check that node parents do not interfere with each
other. This should not hurt existing callers and allows in further
patch use bdrv_refresh_perms() to update a subtree of changed
BdrvChild (check that change is correct).
New check will substitute bdrv_check_update_perm() in following
permissions refactoring, so keep error messages the same to avoid
unit test result changes.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Alberto Garcia <berto@igalia.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-10-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Add simple transaction API to use in further update of block graph
operations.
Supposed usage is:
- "prepare" is main function of the action and it should make the main
effect of the action to be visible for the following actions, keeping
possibility of roll-back, saving necessary things in action state,
which is prepended to the action list (to do that, prepare func
should call tran_add()). So, driver struct doesn't include "prepare"
field, as it is supposed to be called directly.
- commit/rollback is supposed to be called for the list of action
states, to commit/rollback all the actions in reverse order
- When possible "commit" should not make visible effect for other
actions, which make possible transparent logical interaction between
actions.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-9-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
These functions are called only from bdrv_reopen_multiple() in block.c.
No reason to publish them.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Alberto Garcia <berto@igalia.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-8-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Passing parent aio context is redundant, as child_class and parent
opaque pointer are enough to retrieve it. Drop the argument and use new
bdrv_child_get_parent_aio_context() interface.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Alberto Garcia <berto@igalia.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-7-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Add new handler to get aio context and implement it in all child
classes. Add corresponding public interface to be used soon.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Alberto Garcia <berto@igalia.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-6-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
We have too much comments for this feature. It seems better just don't
do it. Most of real users (tests don't count) have to create additional
reference.
Drop also comment in external_snapshot_prepare:
- bdrv_append doesn't "remove" old bs in common sense, it sounds
strange
- the fact that bdrv_append can fail is obvious from the context
- the fact that we must rollback all changes in transaction abort is
known (it's the direct role of abort)
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-5-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
bdrv_append() is not quite good for inserting filters: it does extra
permission update in intermediate state, where filter get it filtered
child but is not yet replace it in a backing chain.
Some filters (for example backup-top) may want permissions even when
have no parents. And described intermediate state becomes invalid.
That's (half a) reason, why we need "inactive" state for backup-top
filter.
bdrv_append() will be improved later, now let's add a unit test.
Now test fails, so it runs only with -d flag. To run do
./test-bdrv-graph-mod -d -p /bdrv-graph-mod/append-greedy-filter
from <build-directory>/tests.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-4-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Add test to show that simple DFS recursion order is not correct for
permission update. Correct order is topological-sort order, which will
be introduced later.
Consider the block driver which has two filter children: one active
with exclusive write access and one inactive with no specific
permissions.
And, these two children has a common base child, like this:
┌─────┐ ┌──────┐
│ fl2 │ ◀── │ top │
└─────┘ └──────┘
│ │
│ │ w
│ ▼
│ ┌──────┐
│ │ fl1 │
│ └──────┘
│ │
│ │ w
│ ▼
│ ┌──────┐
└───────▶ │ base │
└──────┘
So, exclusive write is propagated.
Assume, we want to make fl2 active instead of fl1.
So, we set some option for top driver and do permission update.
If permission update (remember, it's DFS) goes first through
top->fl1->base branch it will succeed: it firstly drop exclusive write
permissions and than apply them for another BdrvChildren.
But if permission update goes first through top->fl2->base branch it
will fail, as when we try to update fl2->base child, old not yet
updated fl1->base child will be in conflict.
Now test fails, so it runs only with -d flag. To run do
./test-bdrv-graph-mod -d -p /bdrv-graph-mod/parallel-perm-update
from <build-directory>/tests.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-3-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Add the test that shows that concept of ignore_children is incomplete.
Actually, when we want to update something, ignoring permission of some
existing BdrvChild, we should ignore also the propagated effect of this
child to the other children. But that's not done. Better approach
(update permissions on already updated graph) will be implemented
later.
Now the test fails, so it's added with -d argument to not break make
check.
Test fails with
"Conflicts with use by fl1 as 'backing', which does not allow 'write' on base"
because when updating permissions we can ignore original top->fl1
BdrvChild. But we don't ignore exclusive write permission in fl1->base
BdrvChild, which is propagated. Correct thing to do is make graph
change first and then do permission update from the top node.
To run test do
./test-bdrv-graph-mod -d -p /bdrv-graph-mod/parallel-exclusive-write
from <build-directory>/tests.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-2-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Currently the gpex PCI controller implements no special behaviour for
guest accesses to areas of the PIO and MMIO where it has not mapped
any PCI devices, which means that for Arm you end up with a CPU
exception due to a data abort.
Most host OSes expect "like an x86 PC" behaviour, where bad accesses
like this return -1 for reads and ignore writes. In the interests of
not being surprising, make host CPU accesses to these windows behave
as -1/discard where there's no mapped PCI device.
The old behaviour generally didn't cause any problems, because
almost always the guest OS will map the PCI devices and then only
access where it has mapped them. One corner case where you will see
this kind of access is if Linux attempts to probe legacy ISA
devices via a PIO window access. So far the only case where we've
seen this has been via the syzkaller fuzzer.
Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Message-id: 20210325163315.27724-1-peter.maydell@linaro.org
Fixes: https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/1918917
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Message-id: 20210419202257.161730-32-richard.henderson@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Message-id: 20210419202257.161730-31-richard.henderson@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Message-id: 20210419202257.161730-30-richard.henderson@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Message-id: 20210419202257.161730-29-richard.henderson@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Message-id: 20210419202257.161730-28-richard.henderson@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
For 128-bit load/store, use 16-byte alignment. This
requires that we perform the two operations in the
correct order so that we generate the alignment fault
before modifying memory.
Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Message-id: 20210419202257.161730-27-richard.henderson@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
In the case of gpr load, merge the size and is_signed arguments;
otherwise, simply convert size to memop.
Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Message-id: 20210419202257.161730-26-richard.henderson@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Message-id: 20210419202257.161730-25-richard.henderson@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Message-id: 20210419202257.161730-24-richard.henderson@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Message-id: 20210419202257.161730-23-richard.henderson@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Message-id: 20210419202257.161730-22-richard.henderson@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Message-id: 20210419202257.161730-21-richard.henderson@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Message-id: 20210419202257.161730-20-richard.henderson@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Message-id: 20210419202257.161730-19-richard.henderson@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Message-id: 20210419202257.161730-18-richard.henderson@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
