From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37756)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <haifeng.lin@huawei.com>) id 1XTmrK-000166-Cw
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 03:07:35 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <haifeng.lin@huawei.com>) id 1XTmrB-0007k4-1W
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 03:07:30 -0400
Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.65]:10897)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <haifeng.lin@huawei.com>) id 1XTmrA-0007gg-4T
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 03:07:20 -0400
Message-ID: <5417E18E.5090204@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 15:06:54 +0800
From: Linhaifeng <haifeng.lin@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1410719879-25181-1-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
	<1410719879-25181-13-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <1410719879-25181-13-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 12/12] vhost-user: fix
 VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF negotiation
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, Damjan Marion <damarion@cisco.com>, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@amazon.com>



On 2014/9/15 2:41, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> From: Damjan Marion <damarion@cisco.com>
> 
> Header length check should happen only if backend is kernel. For user
> backend there is no reason to reset this bit.
> 
> vhost-user code does not define .has_vnet_hdr_len so
> VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF cannot be negotiated even if both sides
> support it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Damjan Marion <damarion@cisco.com>
> Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> ---
>  hw/net/vhost_net.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/hw/net/vhost_net.c b/hw/net/vhost_net.c
> index b21e7a4..77bb93e 100644
> --- a/hw/net/vhost_net.c
> +++ b/hw/net/vhost_net.c
> @@ -163,11 +163,11 @@ struct vhost_net *vhost_net_init(VhostNetOptions *options)
>      if (r < 0) {
>          goto fail;
>      }
> -    if (!qemu_has_vnet_hdr_len(options->net_backend,
> -                               sizeof(struct virtio_net_hdr_mrg_rxbuf))) {
> -        net->dev.features &= ~(1 << VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF);
> -    }
>      if (backend_kernel) {
> +        if (!qemu_has_vnet_hdr_len(options->net_backend,
> +                               sizeof(struct virtio_net_hdr_mrg_rxbuf))) {
> +            net->dev.features &= ~(1 << VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF);
> +        }
>          if (~net->dev.features & net->dev.backend_features) {
>              fprintf(stderr, "vhost lacks feature mask %" PRIu64
>                     " for backend\n",
> 

why vhost-user code not define .has_vnet_hdr_len? I think vhost-user code should define it.

if packet bigger than MTU,this will be a bug?