From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:47641) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QbEQV-0001ZT-Je for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:12:44 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QbEQT-0005N3-MH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:12:43 -0400 Received: from mel.act-europe.fr ([194.98.77.210]:59465) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QbEQT-0005Mx-67 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:12:41 -0400 Message-ID: <4E08ABF4.1010206@adacore.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:12:36 +0200 From: Fabien Chouteau MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1309178511-20027-1-git-send-email-chouteau@adacore.com> <4E08925F.3030605@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Make SLIRP Ethernet packets size to 64 bytes minimum List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 27/06/2011 17:39, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Fabien Chouteau wrote: >> On 27/06/2011 15:50, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Fabien Chouteau wrote: >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Fabien Chouteau >>>> --- >>>> 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