On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 05:59:45PM +0100, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 05:46:17PM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > Hi Edgar,
>
> Hi Philippe,
>
> >
> > On 23/11/18 14:54, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote:
> > > From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.igles...@xilinx.com>
> > >
> > > Don't assert on RX descriptor settings when the receiver is
> > > disabled. This fixes an issue with incoming packets on an
> > > unused GEM.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: mbilal <muhammad_bi...@mentor.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.igles...@xilinx.com>
> > > ---
> > > hw/net/cadence_gem.c | 1 -
> > > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/hw/net/cadence_gem.c b/hw/net/cadence_gem.c
> > > index d95cc27f58..7f63411430 100644
> > > --- a/hw/net/cadence_gem.c
> > > +++ b/hw/net/cadence_gem.c
> > > @@ -979,7 +979,6 @@ static ssize_t gem_receive(NetClientState *nc, const
> > > uint8_t *buf, size_t size)
> > >
> > > /* Do nothing if receive is not enabled. */
> > > if (!gem_can_receive(nc)) {
> > > - assert(!first_desc);
> >
> > Maybe worth:
> >
> > trace_gem_receive_packet_drop(size);
>
> Or perhaps a generic tracepoint on packet drops for any device.
> Anyway this is probably something for after the release.
>
> Not sure if it's too late to even get the removal of the assert into this
> release? Peter?
>
> >
> > > return -1;
> >
> > Shouldn't this be 'return 0'?
> >
> > The "net/net.h" doc is scarce...
>
> If we return 0 my understanding is that we later need to actively
> call qemu_flush_or_purge_queued_packets() to renable the rx
> path which the GEM model doesn't do. So that would mean
> refactoring the model a bit.
Actually, the GEM model does do that, my bad, so yes return 0 seems to be the
right thing to do here.
Thanks,
Edgar
>
> Cheers,
> Edgar
>
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Phil.
> >
> > > }
> > >
> > >
