From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36105) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ebKCu-0001FE-D0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:54:49 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ebKCr-0002uY-CK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:54:48 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:52956) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ebKCr-0002tk-6S for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:54:45 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7FDFC00DB94 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 05:54:43 +0000 (UTC) References: <1515594755-12138-1-git-send-email-thuth@redhat.com> <73e534aa-ba61-e3ca-6730-3382f1c1ce1a@redhat.com> <848373da-2010-d38b-fd88-91cd61dec91e@redhat.com> <28cccfd1-dca4-c074-0f74-1cf29c143a9c@redhat.com> From: Jason Wang Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:54:39 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <28cccfd1-dca4-c074-0f74-1cf29c143a9c@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] net: Allow hubports to connect to other netdevs List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thomas Huth , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Paolo Bonzini Cc: Markus Armbruster On 2018=E5=B9=B401=E6=9C=8816=E6=97=A5 02:06, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 15.01.2018 18:36, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 15.01.2018 08:40, Jason Wang wrote: > [...] >>> And since it was a hub, do we need to send to its netdev too inside >>> net_hub_receive()? >> I currently don't think so, but I'll check again... > OK, I now think we're definitely fine here. The check is really just > there to make sure that we do not send the packet back to the same > sender. And I've checked with a command line like this that network > traffic (TFTP booting in this case) works as expected: > > qemu-system-ppc64 -vga none -nographic \ > -netdev user,id=3Ds1,tftp=3D/path/to/tftpdir,bootfile=3Dppc64.img \ > -netdev hubport,hubid=3D1,id=3Dh1,netdev=3Ds1 \ > -netdev hubport,hubid=3D1,id=3Dh3 -device virtio-net-pci,netdev=3Dh3 = \ > -boot n -object filter-dump,id=3Df1,netdev=3Ds1,file=3D/tmp/dump.dat > > Both, the behaviour of the TFTP boot in the guest and the wireshark dum= p > looked fine, there were no missing packets here. > > Thomas Right, I think I misread the command parameters. Thanks