On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:58 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 3 March 2017 at 15:55, G 3 <programmingk...@gmail.com> wrote:
Here is the patch. I think we should let Mark or some else test it
to see if
it does fix the problem before a real patch is submitted.
---
hw/9pfs/9p-util.h | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
We can't take any patch without a Signed-off-by: line, not
even a three line one.
This was more of a RFC kind of patch. It is a pre-patch. I honestly
don't know if it will work.
diff --git a/hw/9pfs/9p-util.h b/hw/9pfs/9p-util.h
index 091f3ce..254d2a9 100644
--- a/hw/9pfs/9p-util.h
+++ b/hw/9pfs/9p-util.h
@@ -13,6 +13,10 @@
#ifndef QEMU_9P_UTIL_H
#define QEMU_9P_UTIL_H
+#ifndef O_PATH
+ #define O_PATH 0
+#endif
Could use a comment explaining why it's OK to define it in
a way that means it's a no-op on hosts without it.
Ok.
+
static inline void close_preserve_errno(int fd)
{
int serrno = errno;
--
2.10.2
thanks
-- PMM
Thank you.
