On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 12:21:13 +0200
Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_oss@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-9o@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
>
>