On 27/06/2011 17:39, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Fabien Chouteau <chout...@adacore.com> wrote: >> On 27/06/2011 15:50, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Fabien Chouteau <chout...@adacore.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Fabien Chouteau <chout...@adacore.com> >>>> --- >>>> slirp/slirp.c | 4 ++-- >>>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> Any particular bug that this fixes? >>> >>> There have been 64 byte minimum padding patches to several emulated >>> NICs. There has also been discussion about where the best place to do >>> this is. Why is this patch necessary? >>> >> >> This patch is necessary because some NICs are configured to drop short >> frames, >> therefore the OS will not receive some of the packets generated by Qemu. >> >> There's a first patch to fix this issue: >> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/qemu.git/commit/?id=dbf3c4b4baceb91eb64d09f787cbe92d65188813 >> >> My patch fixes two other sources of short frames. > > Thanks for the explanation. I stepped back from the discussion on > where the right place to fix this is last time around. Now I'm > wondering why do anything in slirp when the other sources (tap, ...) > aren't padding to 64 bytes?
I think that packets generated by Qemu must follow RFC. For other sources, qemu should keep original size when possible and put padding otherwise. -- Fabien Chouteau
