On 09/20/2010 03:44 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> From f77c3143f3fbefdfa2f0cc873c2665b5aa78e8c9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Anthony Liguori<email address hidden>
>>> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:29:31 -0500
>>> Subject: [PATCH] tap: make sure packets are at least 40 bytes long
>>>
>>> This is required by ethernet drivers but not enforced in the Linux tap code so
>>> we need to fix it up ourselves.
>>>
>>
>> This enforces ethernet semantics on the internal links (which is probably
>> not good),
>>
> Plus plus ungood.
> When we do add e.g. ipoib support, we'll have to go and hunt these bugs down again.
> Also will make it impossible to implement any devices that pass in guest buffers
> without FCS and padding.
>
That's actually a good point which strongly is in favor of making the
devices do the padding themselves.
On 09/20/2010 03:44 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: fa2f0cc873c2665 b5aa78e8c9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From f77c3143f3fbefd
>>> From: Anthony Liguori<email address hidden>
>>> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:29:31 -0500
>>> Subject: [PATCH] tap: make sure packets are at least 40 bytes long
>>>
>>> This is required by ethernet drivers but not enforced in the Linux tap code so
>>> we need to fix it up ourselves.
>>>
>>
>> This enforces ethernet semantics on the internal links (which is probably
>> not good),
>>
> Plus plus ungood.
> When we do add e.g. ipoib support, we'll have to go and hunt these bugs down again.
> Also will make it impossible to implement any devices that pass in guest buffers
> without FCS and padding.
>
That's actually a good point which strongly is in favor of making the
devices do the padding themselves.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori