On 23/11/18 18:06, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 06:02:25PM +0100, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote: >> 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. > > I take that back, the GEM model only handles some of the !can_receive cases > with qemu_flush_queued_packets(). Not all, so return -1 is correct I think.
OK, thanks for checking this. Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> Regards, Phil.