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(-)
Queued on 9p.next: https://github.com/cschoenebeck/qemu/commits/9p.next Good time to send a PR for this. Thanks! Best regards, Christian Schoenebeck
