Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 0/5] Introduce Intel 82574 GbE Controller Emulation (e1000e)

[Jason Wang]

On 10/28/2015 01:44 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>
> On 10/26/2015 01:00 AM, Leonid Bloch wrote:
>> Hello qemu-devel,
>>
>> This patch series is an RFC for the new networking device emulation
>> we're developing for QEMU.
>>
>> This new device emulates the Intel 82574 GbE Controller and works
>> with unmodified Intel e1000e drivers from the Linux/Windows kernels.
>>
>> The status of the current series is "Functional Device Ready, work
>> on Extended Features in Progress".
>>
>> More precisely, these patches represent a functional device, which
>> is recognized by the standard Intel drivers, and is able to transfer
>> TX/RX packets with CSO/TSO offloads, according to the spec.
>>
>> Extended features not supported yet (work in progress):
>>   1. TX/RX Interrupt moderation mechanisms
>>   2. RSS
>>   3. Full-featured multi-queue (use of multiqueued network backend)
>>
>> Also, there will be some code refactoring and performance
>> optimization efforts.
>>
>> This series was tested on Linux (Fedora 22) and Windows (2012R2)
>> guests, using Iperf, with TX/RX and TCP/UDP streams, and various
>> packet sizes.
>>
>> More thorough testing, including data streams with different MTU
>> sizes, and Microsoft Certification (HLK) tests, are pending missing
>> features' development.
>>
>> See commit messages (esp. "net: Introduce e1000e device emulation")
>> for more information about the development approaches and the
>> architecture options chosen for this device.
>>
>> This series is based upon v2.3.0 tag of the upstream QEMU repository,
>> and it will be rebased to latest before the final submission.
>>
>> Please share your thoughts - any feedback is highly welcomed :)
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Dmitry Fleytman.
> Thanks for the series. Will go through this in next few days.

Have a quick glance at the series, got the following questions:

- Though e1000e differs from e1000 in many places, I still see lots of
code duplications. We need consider to reuse e1000.c (or at least part
of). I believe we don't want to fix a bug twice in two places in the
future and I expect hundreds of lines could be saved through this way.
- For e1000e it self, since it was a new device, so no need to care
about compatibility stuffs (e.g auto negotiation and mit). We can just
enable them forever.
- And for the generic packet abstraction layer, what's the advantages of
this? If it has lot, maybe we can use it in other nic model (e.g
virtio-net)?

Thanks

>
> Since 2.5 is in soft freeze, this looks a 2.6 material.
>