On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 05:30:30PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
[...]
> > > "make V=1 check" fails for me with this patch applied:
> > >
> > > QTEST_QEMU_BINARY=aarch64-softmmu/qemu-system-aarch64
> > > QTEST_QEMU_IMG=qemu-img MALLOC_PERTURB_=${MALLOC_PERTURB_:-$((RANDOM %
> > > 255 + 1))} gtester -k --verbose -m=quick tests/device-introspect-test
> > > tests/qom-test
> > > TEST: tests/device-introspect-test... (pid=275141)
> > > /aarch64/device/introspect/list: OK
> > > /aarch64/device/introspect/none: OK
> > > /aarch64/device/introspect/abstract: OK
> > > /aarch64/device/introspect/concrete:
> > > Unexpected error in object_property_find() at
> > > /home/imammedo/builds/qemu/qom/object.c:1002:
> > > Property '.disable_vnet_hdr' not found
> >
> > Oops! Caused by the e1000e PropertyInfo hack that I tried to
> > remove yesterday. See "e1000e: QOM property & configuration
> > cleanups".
> It's property registration ordering issue exposed by 3/8
>
> simple this this series should include after 3/8:
I'm considering simply squashing the fix below in 3/8, what do
you think?
>
> diff --git a/hw/net/e1000e.c b/hw/net/e1000e.c
> index 368d284..b26760d 100644
> --- a/hw/net/e1000e.c
> +++ b/hw/net/e1000e.c
> @@ -671,7 +671,6 @@ static void e1000e_class_init(ObjectClass *class, void
> *data)
> dc->desc = "Intel 82574L GbE Controller";
> dc->reset = e1000e_qdev_reset;
> dc->vmsd = &e1000e_vmstate;
> - device_class_set_props(dc, e1000e_properties);
>
> e1000e_prop_disable_vnet = qdev_prop_uint8;
> e1000e_prop_disable_vnet.description = "Do not use virtio headers, "
> @@ -683,6 +682,7 @@ static void e1000e_class_init(ObjectClass *class, void
> *data)
>
> e1000e_prop_subsys = qdev_prop_uint16;
> e1000e_prop_subsys.description = "PCI device Subsystem ID";
> + device_class_set_props(dc, e1000e_properties);
>
> set_bit(DEVICE_CATEGORY_NETWORK, dc->categories);
> }
>
> or event better fix ordering issues first and then generate 3/8 on top of
> that.
> I wonder how many similar ordering 3/8 causes.
I've grepped for PropertyInfo usage, and this seems to be the
only case where PropertyInfo structs are modified at runtime.
--
Eduardo
