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 <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > 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
