On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 15:46:26 +0100
Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:

> On 16 September 2016 at 15:39, Greg Kurz <gr...@kaod.org> wrote:
> > Ok, I'll look into it... but the important part in this pull request is
> > the "9pfs: fix potential segfault during walk" patch. It fixes a regression
> > introduced in 2.7 by the 9P security fixes. And IIUC, Michael Roth is about
> > to release 2.6.1.1 with these fixes and the regression...
> >
> > Should I send a new pull request without the qtest patches ? Or with the
> > regression fix only ?  
> 
> That's up to you, as long as you don't break "make check".
> You probably want to investigate at least enough to be happy that
> this problem is a bug in the test code, not the feature itself.
> 

It is the test code actually: 9P uses little-endian ordering :)

I'll post an updated version which doesn't break "make check" on both
BE and LE hosts, and re-send a pull request.

Cheers.

--
Greg

> thanks
> -- PMM

Reply via email to