On Dienstag, 15. März 2022 11:10:25 CEST Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > Currently the implementation of 'Twalk' does not behave exactly as specified > by the 9p2000 protocol specification. Actual fix is patch 5; see the > description of that patch for details of what this overall fix and series > is about. > > PREREQUISITES > ============= > > This series requires the following additional patch to work correctly: > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/e1ntpyu-0000yr...@lizzy.crudebyte.com/ > > OVERVIEW OF PATCHES > =================== > > Patch 4 is a preparatory (pure) refactoring change to make actual 'Twalk' > fix patch 5 better readable. > > All the other patches are just additional test cases for guarding 'Twalk' > behaviour. > > v3 -> v4: > > * QID returned by Twalk request in fs_walk_2nd_nonexistent() test should > NOT be identical to root node's QID. [patch 7] > > * Fix actual 'fid unaffected' check in fs_walk_2nd_nonexistent() test by > sending a subsequent 'Tgetattr' request. [patch 7] > > Christian Schoenebeck (7): > tests/9pfs: walk to non-existent dir > tests/9pfs: Twalk with nwname=0 > tests/9pfs: compare QIDs in fs_walk_none() test > 9pfs: refactor 'name_idx' -> 'nwalked' in v9fs_walk() > 9pfs: fix 'Twalk' to only send error if no component walked > tests/9pfs: guard recent 'Twalk' behaviour fix > tests/9pfs: check fid being unaffected in fs_walk_2nd_nonexistent > > hw/9pfs/9p.c | 57 ++++++---- > tests/qtest/virtio-9p-test.c | 201 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 2 files changed, 231 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
ping No hurry, as this is something for the subsequent QEMU release cycle, but would be good to know whether you will be able to look at this at all. Best regards, Christian Schoenebeck
