From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1O0Vpp-00074q-9D
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 04:14:33 -0400
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=38907 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O0Vpn-00072c-FT
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 04:14:32 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1O0Vpl-00088g-Sy
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 04:14:31 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:6289)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1O0Vpl-00088Z-Jd
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 04:14:29 -0400
Message-ID: <4BC0333D.9070407@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 10:13:49 +0200
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] qcow2: More error path fixes
References: <1270560614-31030-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com>
	<20100410000207.GR21042@volta.aurel32.net>
In-Reply-To: <20100410000207.GR21042@volta.aurel32.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Am 10.04.2010 02:02, schrieb Aurelien Jarno:
> On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 03:30:08PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> This is part three of the qcow2 error path fixes. More to come...
>>
>> May depend on any patches sent earlier that are in my queue (I think it does
>> depend at least on the blkdebug series to apply cleanly)
> 
> All those patches looks fine to me, but as you explained, they depend
> on the blkdebug series, that I am not fully comfortable to review.
> 
> I have therefore applied patches 1 & 6 only, to be able to cherry-pick
> them to the stable branch.

Okay, makes sense. The patches you left out are nice to have, but not as
critical as 1 & 6, so that's fine. Block work can be done based on my
tree, so it doesn't hurt too much if they sit on the list until Anthony
returns.

Kevin