On 2012-02-16 09:45, Zhi Yong Wu wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@web.de> wrote: >> On 2012-02-16 09:07, zwu.ker...@gmail.com wrote: >>> From: Zhi Yong Wu <wu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>> >> >> Please summarize in a bit more details what was broken. > Should those bits be put in the message part of this part? or here?
Here, as a commit log.
>
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Zhi Yong Wu <wu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>> slirp/if.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++--
>>> slirp/mbuf.c | 3 +--
>>> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/slirp/if.c b/slirp/if.c
>>> index 8e0cac2..57350d5 100644
>>> --- a/slirp/if.c
>>> +++ b/slirp/if.c
>>> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ ifs_remque(struct mbuf *ifm)
>>> {
>>> ifm->ifs_prev->ifs_next = ifm->ifs_next;
>>> ifm->ifs_next->ifs_prev = ifm->ifs_prev;
>>> + ifs_init(ifm);
>>> }
>>>
>>> void
>>> @@ -154,7 +155,7 @@ if_start(Slirp *slirp)
>>> {
>>> uint64_t now = qemu_get_clock_ns(rt_clock);
>>> int requeued = 0;
>>> - struct mbuf *ifm, *ifqt;
>>> + struct mbuf *ifm, *ifqt, *ifm_next;
>>>
>>> DEBUG_CALL("if_start");
>>>
>>> @@ -162,6 +163,8 @@ if_start(Slirp *slirp)
>>> return; /* Nothing to do */
>>>
>>> again:
>>> + ifm_next = NULL;
>>> +
>>> /* check if we can really output */
>>> if (!slirp_can_output(slirp->opaque))
>>> return;
>>> @@ -190,6 +193,7 @@ if_start(Slirp *slirp)
>>> /* If there are more packets for this session, re-queue them */
>>> if (ifm->ifs_next != /* ifm->ifs_prev != */ ifm) {
>>> insque(ifm->ifs_next, ifqt);
>>> + ifm_next = ifm->ifs_next;
>>> ifs_remque(ifm);
>>> }
>>>
>>> @@ -209,7 +213,18 @@ if_start(Slirp *slirp)
>>> m_free(ifm);
>>> } else {
>>> /* re-queue */
>>> - insque(ifm, ifqt);
>>> + if (ifm_next) {
>>> + /*restore the original state of batchq*/
>>> + remque(ifm_next);
>>> + insque(ifm, ifqt);
>>> + ifm_next->ifs_prev->ifs_next = ifm;
>>> + ifm->ifs_prev = ifm_next->ifs_prev;
>>> + ifm->ifs_next = ifm_next;
>>> + ifm_next->ifs_prev = ifm;
>>> + } else {
>>> + insque(ifm, ifqt);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> requeued++;
>>> }
>>> }
>>> diff --git a/slirp/mbuf.c b/slirp/mbuf.c
>>> index c699c75..f429c0a 100644
>>> --- a/slirp/mbuf.c
>>> +++ b/slirp/mbuf.c
>>> @@ -68,8 +68,7 @@ m_get(Slirp *slirp)
>>> m->m_size = SLIRP_MSIZE - offsetof(struct mbuf, m_dat);
>>> m->m_data = m->m_dat;
>>> m->m_len = 0;
>>> - m->m_nextpkt = NULL;
>>> - m->m_prevpkt = NULL;
>>> + ifs_init(m);
>>> m->arp_requested = false;
>>> m->expiration_date = (uint64_t)-1;
>>> end_error:
>>
>> Wondering now: Is this hunk required or a cleanup?
> The former. I think that the pointer of one raw mbuf which are used to
> link the packets for the same session should default to itself, not
> NULL.
OK. Out of curiosity, is that an older issue or just related to the
requeuing we now practice?
Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
