Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [PATCH for-2.10] Revert "block/io: Comment out permission assertions"

[Stefan Hajnoczi]

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 2:10 AM, John Snow <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 04/13/2017 10:34 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 13.04.2017 15:28, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 05:52:26PM +0200, Max Reitz wrote:
>>>> This reverts commit e3e0003a8f6570aba1421ef99a0b383a43371a74.
>>>>
>>>> This commit was necessary for the 2.9 release because we were unable to
>>>> fix the underlying issue(s) in time. However, we will be for 2.10.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <address@hidden>
>>>> ---
>>>>  block.c    |  6 +-----
>>>>  block/io.c | 12 ++----------
>>>>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> Should we merge a fix before enabling the assertion again?  It's a known
>>> issue.  Let people using qemu.git live a little and have fun without the
>>> inevitable SIGABRT coredumps.  We don't benefit if more people encounter
>>> this crash and duplicate work debugging it.
>>
>> Yes, we should probably merge the fixes we know about before. But after
>> that, I'd rather merge this patch as soon as possible so we do have a
>> chance of getting more reports (if anything else is broken) before the
>> next freeze. :-)
>>
>> Max
>>
>
> It's nice to have a working tree, but I think Max has a good point about
> wanting to see the reports sooner rather than later, especially if we
> want to roll a 2.9.1 very shortly after release.
>
> (Which I think we should.)

I interpreted Max's reply to mean "okay, let's merge a fix first and
then immediately enable the assertion again".

Your reply seems to interpret Max's email as "the assertion might
catch other bugs so it should be enabled immediately without a fix".

Those two are not the same :).

Stefan