Re: [PATCH 8/8] iotests: Add coverage of recent NBD qio deadlock fix

[Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>]

Am 05.11.2025 um 23:10 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2025 at 02:38:22PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> > On 03.11.25 23:10, Eric Blake wrote:
> > > Test that all images in a qcow2 chain using an NBD backing file can be
> > > served by the same process.  Prior to the recent QIONetListener fixes,
> > > this test would demonstrate deadlock.
> > > 
> > > The test borrows heavily from the original formula by "John Doe" in
> > > the gitlab bug, but uses a Unix socket rather than TCP to avoid port
> > > contention, and uses a full-blown QEMU rather than qemu-storage-daemon
> > > since both programs were impacted.
> > > 
> > > [While preparing this patch by making the new test executable, I
> > > noticed vvfat.out does not need execute permissions]
> > > 
> > > Fixes: https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/3169
> > > Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > >   tests/qemu-iotests/tests/nbd-in-qcow2-chain   | 84 +++++++++++++++++++
> > >   .../qemu-iotests/tests/nbd-in-qcow2-chain.out | 56 +++++++++++++
> > >   tests/qemu-iotests/tests/vvfat.out            |  0
> > >   3 files changed, 140 insertions(+)
> > >   create mode 100755 tests/qemu-iotests/tests/nbd-in-qcow2-chain
> > >   create mode 100644 tests/qemu-iotests/tests/nbd-in-qcow2-chain.out
> > >   mode change 100755 => 100644 tests/qemu-iotests/tests/vvfat.out
> 
> Should I split out that file mode change to a separate cleanup patch?

It's an unrelated change, so while the patch to change only the file
mode may look funny, it's probably better to split it.

Kevin