From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49737) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b0lEU-0004OS-F3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 May 2016 03:40:31 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b0lEQ-0001Xj-1m for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 May 2016 03:40:29 -0400 Received: from e06smtp15.uk.ibm.com ([195.75.94.111]:36936) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b0lEP-0001XU-MU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 May 2016 03:40:25 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp15.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 12 May 2016 08:40:23 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.197]) by d06dlp03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C1561B0806E for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 08:41:16 +0100 (BST) Received: from d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.212]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u4C7eMFQ58982442 for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 07:40:22 GMT Received: from d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u4C7eLR7007261 for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 01:40:22 -0600 References: <1462812240-31204-1-git-send-email-aurelien@aurel32.net> <5730CE8B.1000203@weilnetz.de> <573387F9.8080304@de.ibm.com> From: Christian Borntraeger Message-ID: <57343365.3020603@de.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 09:40:21 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-mips: fix call to memset in soft reset code List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Stefan Weil , Leon Alrae , QEMU Developers , Aurelien Jarno On 05/12/2016 12:41 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 11 May 2016 at 20:28, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >> On 05/09/2016 07:57 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> On 9 May 2016 at 18:55, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>> On 9 May 2016 at 18:53, Stefan Weil wrote: >>>>> I suggest to apply this patch to 2.6, if this is still possible >>>> >>>> It is not; sorry. >> >> I think we have delayed 2.6 already far too long (so please release) >> but > > Already done :-) > >>> Note that it's only an error if you're building with -Werror, and >>> releases don't default to -Werror, so users using released QEMU 2.6 >>> shouldn't hit this even with the newer gcc. Developers developing >>> on trunk shouldn't be unduly inconvenienced if the commit fixing it >>> is post-2.6-release rather than the actual release. >> >> to me it looks like that this is not a compile time error, instead we >> really do not memset a variable that we are supposed to memset. >> the only reason to not consider it for 2.6 is that its is really old >> and it did not seem to cause harm. > > Yes, it is both a code bug and a compile error, but the former > has been present for many releases so is not a regression, and > the latter is only an error if you're building with -Werror. > So in my view it's the kind of bug we'd certainly fix at about > rc3 or so, but not a bug which is "release critical showstopper". Maybe a topic for this years QEMU summit could be to talk about release process and release criterias. We could a: allow more patches , e.g. I thing that this patch would be have been taken in the Linux kernel a day before the release, see for example what is applied 4 days before a release as network fixes: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=4d8bbbff1227bbb27fdb02b6db17f080c06eedad 22 files changed, 258 insertions, 86 deletions b: as we are strict and only apply hand selected patches, regressions are very unlikely, so we could release sooner. For example the CVE fixes could have just been taken and rc5 being released as final. (which we did anyway but 3 days later) c: we consider everything fine and keep the process d: better ideas