Nabih Estefan <nabiheste...@google.com> writes: > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 5:03 AM Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > wrote: >> >> On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 at 16:56, Nabih Estefan <nabiheste...@google.com> wrote: >> > >> > v2: used ldl_le_p and lduw_l_p instead of memcpy as per upstream >> > suggestion. >> > >> > ``` >> > ../tests/qtest/libqos/igb.c:106:5: runtime error: load of misaligned >> > address 0x562040be8e33 for type 'uint32_t', which requires 4 byte alignment >> > ``` >> > Instead of straight casting the uint8_t array, we use memcpy to assure >> > alignment is correct against uint32_t and uint16_t. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Nabih Estefan <nabiheste...@google.com> >> > --- >> > tests/qtest/libqos/igb.c | 4 ++-- >> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/tests/qtest/libqos/igb.c b/tests/qtest/libqos/igb.c >> > index f40c4ec4cd..2e0bb58617 100644 >> > --- a/tests/qtest/libqos/igb.c >> > +++ b/tests/qtest/libqos/igb.c >> > @@ -104,10 +104,10 @@ static void igb_pci_start_hw(QOSGraphObject *obj) >> > e1000e_macreg_write(&d->e1000e, E1000_RDT(0), 0); >> > e1000e_macreg_write(&d->e1000e, E1000_RDH(0), 0); >> > e1000e_macreg_write(&d->e1000e, E1000_RA, >> > - le32_to_cpu(*(uint32_t *)address)); >> > + ldl_le_p((uint32_t *)address)); >> > e1000e_macreg_write(&d->e1000e, E1000_RA + 4, >> > E1000_RAH_AV | E1000_RAH_POOL_1 | >> > - le16_to_cpu(*(uint16_t *)(address + 4))); >> > + lduw_le_p((uint16_t *)(address + 4))); >> >> ldl_le_p() etc take a 'void *' -- the casts here should not be >> necessary. > > Should I send a new patch to fix this if it's already been queued to > testing/next? > Or can it be fixed directly in that branch?
I'll fix it up, I've taken notes when I re-base. > > Thanks, > Nabih > >> >> thanks >> -- PMM -- Alex Bennée Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro
