On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 5:05 PM Ding Hui <ding...@sangfor.com.cn> wrote: > > On 2022/7/4 15:10, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > 在 2022/6/29 17:40, Ding Hui 写道: > >> @@ -1013,6 +1013,9 @@ e1000_receive_iov(NetClientState *nc, const > >> struct iovec *iov, int iovcnt) > >> DBGOUT(RX, "Null RX descriptor!!\n"); > >> } > >> pci_dma_write(d, base, &desc, sizeof(desc)); > >> + desc.status |= (vlan_status | E1000_RXD_STAT_DD); > >> + pci_dma_write(d, base + offsetof(struct e1000_rx_desc, status), > >> + &desc.status, sizeof(desc.status)); > > > > > > Good catch, but to be more safe, I wonder if we can simply use > > stx_le_pci_dma() here? > > > > Do you mean stb_le_pci_dma(d, base + offsetof(struct e1000_rx_desc, > status), desc.status, MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED)? > > I checked both pci_dma_write() and stb_le_pci_dma(), there is no > difference between them,
I think the difference is that the stx_xxx() can guarantee the atomicy when it is allowed by the arch. > but I'm not sure whether it is proper to mixed > use address based api and value based api, besides that it's OK to me. > > Thanks for reply. I apply this patch as is. Thanks > > -- > Thanks, > - Ding Hui > >
