Hi Christian, Sorry for the late response. I'm quite busy on other topics these days...
On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 00:41:01 +0200 Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_...@crudebyte.com> wrote: > On Samstag, 30. März 2019 21:01:28 CEST Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > > On Samstag, 30. März 2019 17:47:51 CET Greg Kurz wrote: > > > Maybe have a look at this tentative to fix QID collisions: > > > > > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-02/msg02283.html > [snip] > > Question: so far I just had a look at that patch set, but haven't tried it > > yet. Am I correct that the inode numbers (of the same file) would actually > > change on guest side with every reboot (i.e. depending on the precise > > sequence individual files would be accessed by guest after each reboot)? > I have not checked. > I intended to extend Antonios' patch set regarding 9p QID collisions with the > goal to make the ids constant beyond reboots by storing the qpp_table as fs > xattr. > Hmm... why would you do that ? Even if some filesystems do have persistant inode numbers, it isn't mandatory AFAIK. > My plan was to load the qpp_table in v9fs_device_realize_common() and save > the > table only once in v9fs_device_unrealize_common(), instead of storing the > table on every new insertion. The problem though is that none of the 9p > unrealize functions is called on guest shutdowns. > The unrealize function is called when the device is unplugged from it's parent bus. It isn't related to guest shutdown. > Is there any callback that is guaranteed to be called on guest shutdowns? > There's no such thing. > Best regards, > Christian Schoenebeck Cheers, -- Greg
