Am 16.06.2011 10:23, schrieb Wen Congyang: > If rtl8139_can_receive() returns 1, it means that the nic can receive packet, > otherwise, it means the nic can not receive packet. > > If !s->clock_enabled or !rtl8139_receiver_enabled(s), it means that the nic > can not receive packet. So the return value should be 0, not 1. > > Signed-off-by: Wen Congyang <we...@cn.fujitsu.com> > > --- > hw/rtl8139.c | 4 ++-- > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/rtl8139.c b/hw/rtl8139.c > index 2f8db58..9084678 100644 > --- a/hw/rtl8139.c > +++ b/hw/rtl8139.c > @@ -810,9 +810,9 @@ static int rtl8139_can_receive(VLANClientState *nc) > > /* Receive (drop) packets if card is disabled. */ > if (!s->clock_enabled) > - return 1; > + return 0; > if (!rtl8139_receiver_enabled(s)) > - return 1; > + return 0; > > if (rtl8139_cp_receiver_enabled(s)) { > /* ??? Flow control not implemented in c+ mode.
NACK. The old behaviour is clearly intentional. IIRC, can_receive() returning 0 means that the packet is kept in a queue and qemu tries to deliver it later. For a disabled receiver, what I would expect is that it should just drop the packets. This is what this code does by returning 1 in can_receive() and then return -1 without processing the packet in receive(). That said, e1000 has a check for (s->mac_reg[RCTL] & E1000_RCTL_EN) in can_receive. Should it be changed or is there a reason behind it? If there is, we may as well change rtl8139, but it definitely needs a better justification. Kevin