On 02/24/2014 08:52 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Gang Chen gang.chen.5...@gmail.com writes:
Excuse me, I have no enough time resources during work day, so I
will/should send the patches within week end (2014-03-02). If we can not
bear the time point, please help send the patches for me.
Chen Gang gang.chen.5...@gmail.com writes:
When path is truncated by PATH_MAX limitation, it causes QEMU to access
incorrect file. So use original full path instead of PATH_MAX within
9pfs (need check/process ENOMEM for related memory allocation).
Also find/fix several another related issues
Firstly, thank you very much for your reviewing. :-)
On 02/24/2014 05:22 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Chen Gang gang.chen.5...@gmail.com writes:
When path is truncated by PATH_MAX limitation, it causes QEMU to access
incorrect file. So use original full path instead of PATH_MAX within
9pfs
Gang Chen gang.chen.5...@gmail.com writes:
Firstly, thank you very much for your reviewing. :-)
On 02/24/2014 05:22 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Chen Gang gang.chen.5...@gmail.com writes:
When path is truncated by PATH_MAX limitation, it causes QEMU to access
incorrect file. So use
When path is truncated by PATH_MAX limitation, it causes QEMU to access
incorrect file. So use original full path instead of PATH_MAX within
9pfs (need check/process ENOMEM for related memory allocation).
Also find/fix several another related issues when failure occurs.
- check 'fh' in
During the test, I found that if the path is long, the performance is
very very slow under 9pfs (whether apply this patch or not, the results
are the same).
So after this patch passes checking, I will/should analyse this
performance issue, next.
Thanks.
On 02/23/2014 12:48 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
