Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH master+0.14 0/2] blockdev memory leaks

[Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>]

On 02/09/2011 08:09 AM, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 14:52 +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>    
>> Hi Justin,
>>
>> Am 08.02.2011 15:12, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
>>      
>>> Markus Armbruster (2):
>>>    blockdev: Plug memory leak in drive_uninit()
>>>    blockdev: Plug memory leak in drive_init() error paths
>>>
>>>   blockdev.c |   12 ++++++++++--
>>>   1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>        
>> How this series made its way into stable was a bit surprising for me.
>> You may not be aware yet of the expectations that I (and probably
>> others) have in the process of patches being applied to stable. No harm
>> done, but maybe something to consider for future patches, so let me just
>> mention some points:
>>
>> I saw that you already merged these patches into the stable tree, even
>> though they are not master yet. I think usually stable should only get
>> cherry-picks from master. There are exceptions of course (e.g. when
>> something will be fixed differently in master), but I don't think this
>> is one of them.
>>
>> Also I noticed that you didn't add your Signed-off-by when applying the
>> patches. As I understand it, you should do this for any patch that you
>> apply directly (i.e. that you don't get via a git pull)
>>
>> I only caught this by chance. If you sent an email ("Thanks, applied to
>> ...") after you have applied a patch or pulled from somewhere, it would
>> be more obvious to the rest of us what happens in stable.
>>      
> Indeed, that was my fault...

No worries, it happens.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>   I had applied them for testing, and pushed
> to the wrong tree.  I have made some local changes to insure that this
> does not happen in the future.  The process is, pathches should be in
> master first, or their be a very good reason that they are not (bugs no
> longer apply to master, or different and more invasive fix is used in
> master).  At this point in the cycle, where there is so little
> divergence from master, there is no reason that anything in stable is
> not in master.
>
> Justin
>
>
>