qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-2.10???] fix build failure in nbd_read_reply


From: Paolo Bonzini
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-2.10???] fix build failure in nbd_read_reply_entry()
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:43:08 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1

On 17/08/2017 18:37, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 17 August 2017 at 17:31, Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On 17/08/2017 18:17, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On 17 August 2017 at 17:16, Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> On 17/08/2017 18:14, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>>>>> travis builds fail at HEAD at rc3 master with
>>>>>
>>>>>   block/nbd-client.c: In function ‘nbd_read_reply_entry’:
>>>>>   block/nbd-client.c:110:8: error: ‘ret’ may be used uninitialized in 
>>>>> this function [-Werror=uninitialized]
>>>>>
>>>>> fix it by initializing 'ret' to 0
>>>>
>>>> This is a false positive, but it's understandably impossible for the
>>>> compiler to figure it out.
>>>>
>>>> Even though we disable -Werror on release builds, it may be worth fixing
>>>> this in 2.10 if it doesn't delay the release.  Peter, what do you think
>>>> about applying this on top of -rc3 without doing a fourth candidate?
>>>
>>> I don't like doing releases which haven't had an rc,
>>> but we've had abbreviated "just a couple of days" rc-to-final
>>> cycles before.
>>
>> It's just a matter of "looking unpolished".  It doesn't deserve -rc4,
>> not even for just a couple of days.
> 
> The purpose of having an rc4 is to avoid the chance of
> messing up the change (which is possible, even if it's a pretty
> remote chance). Having an rc4 gives us a window to catch and
> fix that kind of error -- once we've tagged something as the
> final release we don't get to do it over.

Understood, I meant we can release with the issue unfixed.

Paolo



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]