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

[Justin M. Forbes]

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... 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