On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 10:57 AM Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.od...@daynix.com> wrote:
>
> On 2024/04/08 16:54, Yuri Benditovich wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 10:42 AM Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.od...@daynix.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2024/04/08 16:40, Yuri Benditovich wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 4:30 AM Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.od...@daynix.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2024/04/08 7:09, Yuri Benditovich wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 2:12 PM Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.od...@daynix.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The peer buffer is qualified with const and not meant to be modified.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IMHO, this buffer is not so 'const' (although the prototype states so),
> >>>>> it is allocated in net.c
> >>>>> btw, another procedure in this file also modifies the buffer
> >>>>> (work_around_broken_dhclient)
> >>>>
> >>>> Right but it has a FIXME comment.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> It also prevents enabling VIRTIO_NET_F_HASH_REPORT for peers without
> >>>>>> virtio-net header support.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Does it mean _this commit_ prevents enabling VIRTIO_NET_F_HASH_REPORT
> >>>>> for peers without
> >>>>> virtio-net header support? Where?
> >>>>
> >>>> No, but I meant that this patch fixes such a problem.
> >>>
> >>> No, it does not. Such a problem does not exist in the master, the
> >>> hash_report feature
> >>> is silently dropped in such case:
> >>> https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/master/hw/net/virtio-net.c#L816
> >>
> >> Well, silently dropping VIRTIO_NET_F_HASH_REPORT is not different from
> >> preventing enabling VIRTIO_NET_F_HASH_REPORT, is it?
> >>
> > But how is your patch involved in it? Should this line be removed from
> > the commit message?
>
> In the master, VIRTIO_NET_F_HASH_REPORT is silently dropped, but this
> patch will change to work without dropping it, which is worth to mention.
After applying this series of patches the VIRTIO_NET_F_HASH_REPORT is
dropped _the same way_ as in the master
>
> Regards,
> Akihiko Odaki
