On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 02:29:00PM +0400, Fedorov Sergey wrote:
> On 10/29/2013 06:55 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 03:44:46PM +0400, Fedorov Sergey wrote:
> >>After our discussion about this patch I decided to keep my patch in
> >>our branch until rebase onto a new release.
On 10/29/2013 06:55 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 03:44:46PM +0400, Fedorov Sergey wrote:
After our discussion about this patch I decided to keep my patch in
our branch until rebase onto a new release. Recently I have rebased
our branch onto v1.5.3 and reverted my patch. The
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 03:44:46PM +0400, Fedorov Sergey wrote:
> After our discussion about this patch I decided to keep my patch in
> our branch until rebase onto a new release. Recently I have rebased
> our branch onto v1.5.3 and reverted my patch. Then I face an issue
> when using user-mode net
On 10/21/2013 03:52 PM, Fedorov Sergey wrote:
On 10/21/2013 03:44 PM, Fedorov Sergey wrote:
On 04/23/2013 04:00 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:41:42AM +0400, Fedorov Sergey wrote:
Beyond that, we also want to avoid growing net queues
indefinitely. If
the hub does not
On 10/21/2013 03:44 PM, Fedorov Sergey wrote:
On 04/23/2013 04:00 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:41:42AM +0400, Fedorov Sergey wrote:
Beyond that, we also want to avoid growing net queues
indefinitely. If
the hub does not implement .can_receive() then it relies on grow
On 04/23/2013 04:00 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:41:42AM +0400, Fedorov Sergey wrote:
Beyond that, we also want to avoid growing net queues indefinitely. If
the hub does not implement .can_receive() then it relies on growing
queues (keeping packets buffered in memory).
On 04/23/2013 04:00 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:41:42AM +0400, Fedorov Sergey wrote:
Beyond that, we also want to avoid growing net queues indefinitely. If
the hub does not implement .can_receive() then it relies on growing
queues (keeping packets buffered in memory).
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:41:42AM +0400, Fedorov Sergey wrote:
> >Beyond that, we also want to avoid growing net queues indefinitely. If
> >the hub does not implement .can_receive() then it relies on growing
> >queues (keeping packets buffered in memory).
> No, net_hub_receive() calls qemu_send_p
On 04/23/2013 03:48 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 01:32:11PM +0400, Fedorov Sergey wrote:
On 04/23/2013 10:58 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 07:27:21PM +0400, Fedorov Sergey wrote:
On 04/22/2013 06:57 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 01:32:11PM +0400, Fedorov Sergey wrote:
>
> On 04/23/2013 10:58 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 07:27:21PM +0400, Fedorov Sergey wrote:
> >>On 04/22/2013 06:57 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 04:26:16PM +0400, Fedorov Sergey wro
On 04/23/2013 10:58 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 07:27:21PM +0400, Fedorov Sergey wrote:
On 04/22/2013 06:57 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 04:26:16PM +0400, Fedorov Sergey wrote:
On 04/22/2013 03:47 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at
On 04/23/2013 10:58 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 07:27:21PM +0400, Fedorov Sergey wrote:
On 04/22/2013 06:57 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 04:26:16PM +0400, Fedorov Sergey wrote:
On 04/22/2013 03:47 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at
On 04/22/2013 08:09 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 22/04/2013 17:27, Fedorov Sergey ha scritto:
E.g. network hub has 3 ports. Suppose when iterating through port list
in net_hub_port_can_receive() a packet is successfully delivered to the
first port, and then is queued in the source port queue beca
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 07:27:21PM +0400, Fedorov Sergey wrote:
> On 04/22/2013 06:57 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 04:26:16PM +0400, Fedorov Sergey wrote:
> >>On 04/22/2013 03:47 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 03:31:55PM +0400, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
Il 22/04/2013 17:27, Fedorov Sergey ha scritto:
>
> E.g. network hub has 3 ports. Suppose when iterating through port list
> in net_hub_port_can_receive() a packet is successfully delivered to the
> first port, and then is queued in the source port queue because the
> second port cannot receive pa
On 04/22/2013 06:57 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 04:26:16PM +0400, Fedorov Sergey wrote:
On 04/22/2013 03:47 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 03:31:55PM +0400, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
Network hub should always receive incoming packets. Then forward them to
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 04:26:16PM +0400, Fedorov Sergey wrote:
> On 04/22/2013 03:47 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 03:31:55PM +0400, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
> >>Network hub should always receive incoming packets. Then forward them to
> >>the appropriate port queue and let the
On 04/22/2013 03:47 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 03:31:55PM +0400, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
Network hub should always receive incoming packets. Then forward them to
the appropriate port queue and let the qemu_send_packet() do the right
things. If the destination queue cannot r
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 03:31:55PM +0400, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
> Network hub should always receive incoming packets. Then forward them to
> the appropriate port queue and let the qemu_send_packet() do the right
> things. If the destination queue cannot receive the packet it will be
> appended to t
Network hub should always receive incoming packets. Then forward them to
the appropriate port queue and let the qemu_send_packet() do the right
things. If the destination queue cannot receive the packet it will be
appended to the queue. When the receiver call
qemu_flush_queued_packets() later the q
20 matches
Mail list logo
