qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv2 4/5] eepro100: switch e100_compute_mcast_idx()


From: Mark Cave-Ayland
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv2 4/5] eepro100: switch e100_compute_mcast_idx() over to use net_crc32()
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 05:15:14 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0

On 05/12/17 15:13, Stefan Weil wrote:

Am 05.12.2017 um 09:17 schrieb Mark Cave-Ayland:
Signed-off-by: Mark Cave-Ayland <address@hidden>
---
  hw/net/eepro100.c | 19 +------------------
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 18 deletions(-)

diff --git a/hw/net/eepro100.c b/hw/net/eepro100.c
index 1c0def555b..4fe94b7471 100644
--- a/hw/net/eepro100.c
+++ b/hw/net/eepro100.c
@@ -327,26 +327,9 @@ static const uint16_t eepro100_mdi_mask[] = {
static E100PCIDeviceInfo *eepro100_get_class(EEPRO100State *s); -/* From FreeBSD (locally modified). */
  static unsigned e100_compute_mcast_idx(const uint8_t *ep)
  {
-    uint32_t crc;
-    int carry, i, j;
-    uint8_t b;
-
-    crc = 0xffffffff;
-    for (i = 0; i < 6; i++) {
-        b = *ep++;
-        for (j = 0; j < 8; j++) {
-            carry = ((crc & 0x80000000L) ? 1 : 0) ^ (b & 0x01);
-            crc <<= 1;
-            b >>= 1;
-            if (carry) {
-                crc = ((crc ^ POLYNOMIAL) | carry);
-            }
-        }
-    }
-    return (crc & BITS(7, 2)) >> 2;
+    return (net_crc32(ep, 6) & BITS(7, 2)) >> 2;
  }
/* Read a 16 bit control/status (CSR) register. */


What about eliminating the intermediate function e100_compute_mcast_idx (and 
function lnc_mchash, too)?
You did that for lnc_mchash, and I think that is cleaner and saves some lines 
of code.

Yes, I can do if you like. The reason I've left these as they are for the moment is that I don't have something readily available to test multicast for eepro100 post-conversion (my SPARC/PPC images cover pcnet/sunhme) but if you are happy the functionality is the same during review then I can go ahead and do it.

I don't really mind exactly how we do the conversion as long as we aim for consistency.

With or without that minor change:

Reviewed-by: Stefan Weil <address@hidden>

Regards
Stefan

ATB,

Mark.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]