On Montag, 1. Februar 2021 13:26:49 CET Greg Kurz wrote: > On Mon, 01 Feb 2021 12:30:52 +0100 > > Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_...@crudebyte.com> wrote: > > On Montag, 1. Februar 2021 10:24:26 CET Greg Kurz wrote: > > > On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 19:23:52 +0100 > > > > > > Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_...@crudebyte.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Hi Christian, > > > > > > > I started setting up some developer documentation for 9pfs: > > > > https://wiki.qemu.org/Documentation/9p > > > > > > > > Still quite a bunch that should be added (e.g. there should be a > > > > section > > > > about threads and coroutines), but at least it's a start ... > > > > > > I agree that a bunch of other things should be documented, but that's > > > definitely a great start. Thanks for doing this ! > > > > > > Just one remark on the topology diagram: > > > > > > https://wiki.qemu.org/File:9pfs_topology.png > > > > > > It gives the impression that the 9p transport and server can > > > handle multiple guests, which they certainly don't : each > > > 9p server lives in exactly one device which is exposed to > > > exactly one guest. > > > > Right, I haven't considered that the diagram might be interpreted that > > way. My primary intention was to show the 3 main components of 9pfs from > > design perspective and secondary showing that multiple guests can share > > storage. > > > > So what would be better: a) duplicating the server side in the diagram > > (then the image might become a bit large in height), b) dropping the > > multiple guests, c) making the issue with server instances clear in the > > text? > I'd rather go for b)
Updated the diagram on the wiki page. To keep noise low, I won't send emails on further changes to that wiki page. If you want to be auto notified then just add yourself to the watch list there. > > If there are other things that you might think should be outlined by > > additional diagram(s) let me know, then I can add that in one rush. > > > > -- > > > > BTW I'm no longer able to run the 'local' 9p tests, --slow doesn't work > > for > > me. If you don't have an idea what I might be missing, then I have to look > > why the CLI parameter is not interpreted. > > Is it that '-m slow' doesn't work when running 'qos-test' or > that 'make check-qtest SPEEP=slow' doesn't run the slow tests ? Ah, that's '-m slow', not '--slow'. Yeah, that works for qos-test. I added the '-m slow' switch to the wiki page as well. For now I can live with that, as I am more commonly calling qos-test directly. But it would be nice if the slow tests would make it into the general chain of all QEMU tests accordingly again. > The latter was discussed on IRC last year but I don't know if > anyone has tried to investigate this yet. > > Nov 24 11:36:53 <groug> th_huth, Hi. FYI it seems that the meson > conversion > kinda broke 'make check SPEED=slow'. Test programs aren't passed '-m slow' > Nov 24 11:51:42 <f4bug> th_huth: do you know who uses/tests SPEED=slow? > Nov > 24 11:52:03 <f4bug> th_huth: I thought this was a block-related feature Nov > 24 11:52:44 <groug> f4bug, it is supposedly used by gitlab CI > Nov 24 11:52:59 <groug> .gitlab-ci.yml: MAKE_CHECK_ARGS: check-qtest > SPEED=slow Nov 24 12:50:53 <th_huth> groug, I'm also running make check > SPEED=slow manually sometimes ... I guess that got lost in the conversion > to ninja ... bonzini, did you ever try? Nov 24 12:51:03 <bonzini> no it > shouldn't > Nov 24 12:51:21 <th_huth> let me check... > Nov 24 12:51:40 <bonzini> ah, the tests are chosen correctly but -m slow is > lost Nov 24 12:52:02 <groug> yes that's what I see > Nov 24 12:54:04 <groug> bonzini, missing bits in scripts/mtest2make.py ? > Nov 24 12:54:28 <bonzini> groug: sort of, but assuming that all executables > support -m slow wouldn't work > > Cc'ing Thomas and Paolo for additional details. > > > Best regards, > > Christian Schoenebeck
