From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=59927 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PnARI-0002Ih-GO for Qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Feb 2011 08:50:37 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PnARG-0005E7-QW for Qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Feb 2011 08:50:36 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:22396) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PnARG-0005Dq-Im for Qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Feb 2011 08:50:34 -0500 Message-ID: <4D529C12.60601@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 14:52:18 +0100 From: Kevin Wolf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1297174359-31888-1-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1297174359-31888-1-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH master+0.14 0/2] blockdev memory leaks List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: jmforbes@linuxtx.org Cc: Markus Armbruster , Qemu-devel@nongnu.org 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. Kevin