On 2017-12-25 03:54, Mao Zhongyi wrote:
> Packet size some time different or when network is busy.
> Based on same payload size, but TCP protocol can not
> guarantee send the same one packet in the same way,
[...]
> Signed-off-by: Mao Zhongyi <maozy.f...@cn.fujitsu.com>
> Signed-off-by: Li Zhijian <lizhij...@cn.fujitsu.com>
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Chen <zhangc...@gmail.com>
> Reviewed-by: Zhang Chen <zhangc...@gmail.com>
> Tested-by: Zhang Chen <zhangc...@gmail.com>
> ---
> net/colo-compare.c | 343
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> net/colo.c | 9 ++
> net/colo.h | 15 +++
> net/trace-events | 2 +-
> 4 files changed, 250 insertions(+), 119 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/colo-compare.c b/net/colo-compare.c
> index f39ca02..8622b0b 100644
> --- a/net/colo-compare.c
> +++ b/net/colo-compare.c
[...]
> @@ -214,104 +254,175 @@ static int colo_compare_packet_payload(Packet *ppkt,
> }
>
> /*
> - * Called from the compare thread on the primary
> - * for compare tcp packet
> - * compare_tcp copied from Dr. David Alan Gilbert's branch
> - */
> -static int colo_packet_compare_tcp(Packet *spkt, Packet *ppkt)
> + * return true means that the payload is consist and
> + * need to make the next comparison, false means do
> + * the checkpoint
> +*/
> +static bool colo_mark_tcp_pkt(Packet *ppkt, Packet *spkt,
> + int8_t *mark, uint32_t max_ack)
> {
> - struct tcphdr *ptcp, *stcp;
> - int res;
> + *mark = 0;
> +
> + if (ppkt->tcp_seq == spkt->tcp_seq && ppkt->seq_end == spkt->seq_end) {
> + if (colo_compare_packet_payload(ppkt, spkt,
> + ppkt->header_size, spkt->header_size,
> + ppkt->payload_size)) {
> + *mark = COLO_COMPARE_FREE_SECONDARY | COLO_COMPARE_FREE_PRIMARY;
> + return true;
> + }
> + }
> + if (ppkt->tcp_seq == spkt->tcp_seq && ppkt->seq_end == spkt->seq_end) {
> + if (colo_compare_packet_payload(ppkt, spkt,
> + ppkt->header_size, spkt->header_size,
> + ppkt->payload_size)) {
> + *mark = COLO_COMPARE_FREE_SECONDARY | COLO_COMPARE_FREE_PRIMARY;
> + return true;
> + }
> + }
Hi,
seems like this patch introduced some duplicated code, see this bug
ticket here:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/1811499
Is the second if-statement here on purpose? If yes, maybe you could add
a comment here? If no, could you please send a patch to remove it?
Thanks,
Thomas
