>> diff --git a/hw/s390x/css.c b/hw/s390x/css.c
>> index 5a9fe45ce8..db378f6238 100644
>> --- a/hw/s390x/css.c
>> +++ b/hw/s390x/css.c
>> @@ -750,12 +750,13 @@ static void sch_handle_halt_func(SubchDev *sch)
>>
>> }
>>
>> -static void copy_sense_id_to_guest(SenseId *dest, SenseId *src)
>> +static void copy_sense_id_to_guest(SenseIdPacked *dest, SenseId *src)
>> {
>> int i;
>>
>> dest->reserved = src->reserved;
>> - dest->cu_type = cpu_to_be16(src->cu_type);
>> + /* avoid unaligned accesses */
>> + dest->cu_type[0] = cpu_to_be16(src->cu_type) >> 8;
>
> The error Peter reported was "load of misaligned address", so the
> culprit is the cpu_to_be16() call. See bswap16s() casting an unaligned u16.
>
> IMHO your patch should trigger the same issue.
No, src->cu_type would be aligned now ...
>
> What about this instead?
>
> dest->cu_type = lduw_be_p(&src->cu_type);
>
... however that certainly looks better ...
... but looks like Thomas wants to stick to the handcrafted approach.
Thanks!
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
