From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37583) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gSlAL-0001sh-C3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 10:57:18 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gSlAI-0000nj-2a for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 10:57:17 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54194) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gSlAH-0000nH-Ss for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 10:57:14 -0500 References: <20181129100340.13823-1-fli@suse.com> <4031aa35-a9f0-dd87-ad2a-0cc35546f7af@redhat.com> <27e46dfa-f874-8b20-7522-f933d0dda897@suse.com> From: Eric Blake Message-ID: <0f774e48-892a-de5b-74d2-2a1694e6022f@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 09:57:12 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <27e46dfa-f874-8b20-7522-f933d0dda897@suse.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-3.1? RFC v2 0/5] fix some segmentation faults and migration issues List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Fei Li , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Peter Maydell On 11/30/18 12:15 AM, Fei Li wrote: >=20 >=20 > On 11/29/2018 10:20 PM, Eric Blake wrote: >> On 11/29/18 4:03 AM, Fei Li wrote: >>> These five patches almost get the Reviewed-by and are extracted from >>> previous "[PATCH RFC v7 0/9] qemu_thread_create: propagate errors to >>> callers to check."=C2=A0 The mentioned patch series have waited on on= e >>> multifd issue for a while and still needs a further discussion. >>> >>> Thus separate(send) these five almost-done patches and hope they can >>> be merged for the next tag. Thanks for the review. :) >> >> How likely are any of these crashers to affect an end user?=20 > IMHO, they are not easily triggered. A crash at the command line is annoying, but not too bad (because you=20 didn't start the guest after all). A crash after the guest has been=20 running for some time, though, is worth considering (data loss should be=20 avoided). I won't make the final determination on this series, but hope=20 that my questions are helpful to the maintainers for this code in=20 ranking the severity of these crashes. >> Are any of them regressions over 3.0? > I do not think so. >> I'm trying to gauge if any of this is serious enough to warrant a=20 >> -rc4, or if we are okay just documenting them as known corner-case=20 >> bugs and deferring the fix to 4.0 and qemu-stable. > Emm, actually not so emergency to be included in -rc4. > And I think it is ok to wait for maintainers to do the pick for the=20 > appropriate release. > BTW, why 4.0, but not 3.2 or 3.3 (I mean 3.minor version)? See https://www.qemu.org/download/ for the explanation on version numberi= ng --=20 Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org