On Tue, Aug 05, 2025 at 01:49:44PM +0200, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > On Wednesday, July 30, 2025 4:32:22 PM CEST Mark Johnston wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 06:09:35PM +0200, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > > > On Wednesday, July 23, 2025 5:55:58 PM CEST Mark Johnston wrote: > [...] > > Thank you for taking a look. > > > > I'll certainly be around to help deal with issues and patches relating > > to 9pfs+FreeBSD hosts. It's hard to prove that, but for what it's worth > > I use QEMU fairly extensively for FreeBSD development when I can't use > > the native hypervisor, and that's not likely to change anytime soon. > > > > Would adding myself to MAINTAINERS for virtio-9pfs (or a new > > virtio-9pfs-freebsd category) be appropriate in that case? > > Good to hear that you will be around! > > I leave it to you whether you want to add yourself as reviewer of patches to > MAINTAINER's 9pfs section.
Ok. I'll leave myself off the list for now then. If the patch is applied and any FreeBSD-related problems crop up, please let me know of course I'll try to fix them ASAP. If this turns out to be a regular occurrence (hopefully not), I can add myself and be more proactive about responding to patches or bug reports. > > > > diff --git a/hw/9pfs/9p-util.h b/hw/9pfs/9p-util.h > > > > index a1924fe3f0..7315b32591 100644 > > > > --- a/hw/9pfs/9p-util.h > > > > +++ b/hw/9pfs/9p-util.h > > > > @@ -21,6 +21,14 @@ > > > > #define O_PATH_9P_UTIL 0 > > > > #endif > > > > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_FREEBSD > > > > +/* > > > > + * FreeBSD does not have these flags, so we can only emulate them > > > > (racily). > > > > + */ > > > > +#define XATTR_CREATE 0x1 > > > > +#define XATTR_REPLACE 0x2 > > > > +#endif > > > > + > > > > > > What do you mean with "racily" here? > > > > FreeBSD cannot atomically check for the existence of and set an extattr, > > the system call interface simply doesn't support it today. This means > > that fsetxattrat_nofollow() needs back-to-back system calls to check for > > the existence of an attribute and then potentially set it. > > Ah, I was misinterpreting your comment as if it were "racily defining" the > macros. Maybe change the comment to something like "... can only emulate their > intended behaviour (racily) ...". Done. I'll send out a v2 shortly.
