From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Noory-0006i8-E0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:08:26 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=46186 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Noorx-0006hq-Vq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:08:26 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Noorx-0008BQ-07 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:08:25 -0500 Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.151]:54467) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Noorw-0008B0-Gb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:08:24 -0500 Received: from d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.226]) by e33.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o2924p57025295 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 19:04:51 -0700 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id o2928Lng163516 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 19:08:21 -0700 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id o2928KtA021766 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 19:08:21 -0700 Message-ID: <4B95AD93.1070502@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:08:19 -0800 From: jvrao MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/17] virtio-9p: Implement P9_TSTAT References: <1267642874-15001-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <1267642874-15001-6-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <87vddcjhpv.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <87vddcjhpv.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Aneesh Kumar K. V" Cc: Anthony Liguori , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Gautham R Shenoy Aneesh Kumar K. V wrote: > On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 23:35:36 +0300 (MSK), malc wrote: >> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> >>> This get the mount to work on the guest >>> >>> [kiran@linux.vnet.ibm.com: malloc to qemu_malloc conversion] >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori >>> Signed-off-by: Gautham R Shenoy >>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V >>> --- >>> hw/virtio-9p-local.c | 7 ++ >>> hw/virtio-9p.c | 169 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >>> 2 files changed, 174 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/hw/virtio-9p-local.c b/hw/virtio-9p-local.c >>> index 204437c..9752f76 100644 >>> --- a/hw/virtio-9p-local.c >>> +++ b/hw/virtio-9p-local.c >>> @@ -72,9 +72,16 @@ static int local_setuid(void *opaque, uid_t uid) >>> return 0; >>> } >>> >>> +static ssize_t local_readlink(void *opaque, const char *path, >>> + char *buf, size_t bufsz) >>> +{ >>> + return readlink(rpath(path), buf, bufsz); >>> +} >>> + >>> static V9fsPosixFileOperations ops = { >>> .lstat = local_lstat, >>> .setuid = local_setuid, >>> + .readlink = local_readlink, >>> }; >>> >>> V9fsPosixFileOperations *virtio_9p_init_local(const char *path) >>> diff --git a/hw/virtio-9p.c b/hw/virtio-9p.c >>> index c63ac80..10bcd89 100644 >>> --- a/hw/virtio-9p.c >>> +++ b/hw/virtio-9p.c >>> @@ -102,6 +102,21 @@ static int posix_setuid(V9fsState *s, uid_t uid) >>> return s->ops->setuid(s->ops->opaque, uid); >>> } >>> >>> +static ssize_t posix_readlink(V9fsState *s, V9fsString *path, V9fsString *buf) >>> +{ >>> + ssize_t len; >>> + >>> + buf->data = qemu_malloc(1024); >>> + >>> + len = s->ops->readlink(s->ops->opaque, path->data, buf->data, 1024 - 1); >>> + if (len > -1) { >>> + buf->size = len; >>> + buf->data[len] = 0; >>> + } >>> + >>> + return len; >>> +} >>> + >>> static void v9fs_string_free(V9fsString *str) >>> { >>> free(str->data); >> Should be qemu_free, no? >> > > > Updated the patch Is there any reason (other than being coding style) in using qemu_free() instead of free()? As per qem-malloc.c qemu_free() is nothing but free(). The reason I am asking is.. tracking string allocs become tricky if some of them were defined using qemu_alloc() and others are allocated through sprintf(). Thanks, JV > > -aneesh > >