From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NHine-0003GK-6T for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:59:10 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NHinZ-000396-Bz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:59:09 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45533 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NHinZ-00038U-7Y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:59:05 -0500 Received: from mail-qy0-f194.google.com ([209.85.221.194]:42791) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NHinY-00075S-CV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:59:04 -0500 Received: by qyk32 with SMTP id 32so1967522qyk.4 for ; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 10:59:03 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4B1D5074.1040303@codemonkey.ws> Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:59:00 -0600 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Permit zero-sized qemu_malloc() & friends References: <4B1D2462.3070000@codemonkey.ws> <4B1D2696.5080003@redhat.com> <4B1D27EE.7060400@codemonkey.ws> <4B1D292D.4010700@redhat.com> <4B1D2B54.40402@codemonkey.ws> <4B1D2CC2.7010806@redhat.com> <4B1D2E2E.6060907@codemonkey.ws> <4B1D2F38.1040604@redhat.com> <4B1D347A.3030102@codemonkey.ws> <4B1D363A.5020200@redhat.com> <4B1D36BE.9020801@codemonkey.ws> <4B1D37D2.3010707@redhat.com> <4B1D38B1.7040705@codemonkey.ws> <4B1D392C.4070109@redhat.com> <4B1D3E20.2030407@codemonkey.ws> <4B1D4898.1020105@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4B1D4898.1020105@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Avi Kivity Cc: Kevin Wolf , Paul Brook , Markus Armbruster , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Avi Kivity wrote: > My problem is with stable-0.12. Consider upstream fixed. > > 1) Bug reported against qemu-0.12.0. > 2) Developer writes patch against master, submits, all is well except > for the CODING_STYLE argument it triggers. > 3) Developer writes patch against stable-0.12, can't test because > testing crashes in some place where production doesn't crash. Stable-0.12 always carries a VERSION of 0.12.x where x < 50. This means that the stable-0.12 branch will always behave like a production release. You don't get -Werror on stable-0.XX and you won't get zero malloc()s assert. Regards, Anthony Liguori