On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 11:56:50 +0200 Laurent Vivier <lviv...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 30/09/2016 10:33, Greg Kurz wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:15:05 +0200 > > Laurent Vivier <lviv...@redhat.com> wrote: > ... > >> @@ -230,9 +227,6 @@ static void test_unaligned_write_same(void) > >> 0x41, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x01, 0x00, 0x33, 0x00, 0x00 > >> }; > >> > >> - qvirtio_scsi_start("-drive file=blkdebug::null-co://,if=none,id=dr1" > >> - ",format=raw,file.align=4k " > >> - "-device scsi-disk,drive=dr1,lun=0,scsi-id=1"); > >> vs = qvirtio_scsi_pci_init(PCI_SLOT); > >> > >> g_assert_cmphex(0, ==, > >> @@ -242,7 +236,7 @@ static void test_unaligned_write_same(void) > >> virtio_scsi_do_command(vs, write_same_cdb_2, NULL, 0, buf2, 512, > >> NULL)); > >> > >> qvirtio_scsi_pci_free(vs); > >> - qvirtio_scsi_stop(); > >> + qvirtio_scsi_stop(vs->qs); > > > > Is still vs->qs still valid ? Also it looks wrong to call > > qvirtio_scsi_stop() > > without any prior call to qvirtio_scsi_start()... > > The qvirtio_scsi_start() is called by qvirtio_scsi_pci_init(). > > Laurent I guess qvirtio_scsi_pci_free() should call qvirtio_scsi_stop() as well then. Also, it looks like vs is leaked, but this is already the case with the current code. Maybe worth fixing that first. Cheers. -- Greg