On 2020/7/29 上午12:26, Mauro Matteo Cascella wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 6:06 AM Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 2020/7/28 上午1:08, Mauro Matteo Cascella wrote:
This patch introduces a new function in hw/net/net_tx_pkt.{c,h} to check the
current data fragment against the maximum number of data fragments.
I wonder whether it's better to do the check in
net_tx_pkt_add_raw_fragment() and fail there.
Given the assertion, I assumed the caller is responsible for the
check, but moving the check in net_tx_pkt_add_raw_fragment() totally
makes sense to me.
Want to send a new version for this?
Btw, I find net_tx_pkt_add_raw_fragment() does not unmap dma when
returning to true, is this a bug?
Isn't it unmapped in net_tx_pkt_reset()?
Probably but see how it was used in e1000e, the net_tx_pkt_reset() is
only called when eop is set. Is this a bug?
Thanks
Thanks
Reported-by: Ziming Zhang <ezrak...@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Mauro Matteo Cascella <mcasc...@redhat.com>
---
hw/net/net_tx_pkt.c | 5 +++++
hw/net/net_tx_pkt.h | 8 ++++++++
2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/hw/net/net_tx_pkt.c b/hw/net/net_tx_pkt.c
index 9560e4a49e..d035618f2c 100644
--- a/hw/net/net_tx_pkt.c
+++ b/hw/net/net_tx_pkt.c
@@ -400,6 +400,11 @@ bool net_tx_pkt_add_raw_fragment(struct NetTxPkt *pkt,
hwaddr pa,
}
}
+bool net_tx_pkt_exceed_max_fragments(struct NetTxPkt *pkt)
+{
+ return pkt->raw_frags >= pkt->max_raw_frags;
+}
+
bool net_tx_pkt_has_fragments(struct NetTxPkt *pkt)
{
return pkt->raw_frags > 0;
diff --git a/hw/net/net_tx_pkt.h b/hw/net/net_tx_pkt.h
index 4ec8bbe9bd..e2ee46ae03 100644
--- a/hw/net/net_tx_pkt.h
+++ b/hw/net/net_tx_pkt.h
@@ -179,6 +179,14 @@ bool net_tx_pkt_send_loopback(struct NetTxPkt *pkt,
NetClientState *nc);
*/
bool net_tx_pkt_parse(struct NetTxPkt *pkt);
+/**
+* indicates if the current data fragment exceeds max_raw_frags
+*
+* @pkt: packet
+*
+*/
+bool net_tx_pkt_exceed_max_fragments(struct NetTxPkt *pkt);
+
/**
* indicates if there are data fragments held by this packet object.
*