On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 12:21:13 +0200 Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_...@crudebyte.com> wrote:
> 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. > Yes I will but probably not before next week. Cheers, -- Greg > Best regards, > Christian Schoenebeck > >