On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 08:42:15AM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Thu, 07/02 14:30, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:29:20AM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > It returns true as long as there is another attached port. This is not
> > > strictly necessary because even if there is only
On Thu, 07/02 14:30, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:29:20AM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > It returns true as long as there is another attached port. This is not
> > strictly necessary because even if there is only one port (the sender),
> > net_hub_port_receive could succeed with
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:29:20AM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> It returns true as long as there is another attached port. This is not
> strictly necessary because even if there is only one port (the sender),
> net_hub_port_receive could succeed with a NOP. So always deliver the
> packets, instead of
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:29:20AM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> It returns true as long as there is another attached port.
No, other ports may also return false from .can_receive(). So this
function can return false when there are multiple ports.
> This is not
> strictly necessary because even if t
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:29:20 +0800
Fam Zheng wrote:
> It returns true as long as there is another attached port. This is not
> strictly necessary because even if there is only one port (the sender),
> net_hub_port_receive could succeed with a NOP. So always deliver the
> packets, instead of queui
It returns true as long as there is another attached port. This is not
strictly necessary because even if there is only one port (the sender),
net_hub_port_receive could succeed with a NOP. So always deliver the
packets, instead of queuing them.
This fixes the possible hanging issue after net laye
