qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-3.1?] 9p: remove support for the "handle" ba


From: Greg Kurz
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-3.1?] 9p: remove support for the "handle" backend
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 18:10:20 +0100

On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 17:00:29 +0000
Peter Maydell <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 at 16:45, Greg Kurz <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 09:52:18 -0600
> > Eric Blake <address@hidden> wrote:
> >  
> > > On 11/30/18 2:49 AM, Greg Kurz wrote:  
> > > > The "handle" fsdev backend was deprecated in QEMU 2.12.0 with:
> > > >
> > > > commit db3b3c7281ca82e2647e072a1f97db111313dd73
> > > > Author: Greg Kurz <address@hidden>
> > > > Date:   Mon Jan 8 11:18:23 2018 +0100
> > > >
> > > >      9pfs: deprecate handle backend  
> > >  
> > > > It has passed the two release cooling period without any complaint.
> > > >
> > > > Remove it now.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kurz <address@hidden>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > It could have been removed for 3.1.0, but I woke up too late, so moving
> > > > this to 4.0.
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > >   fsdev/qemu-fsdev.c    |    3
> > > >   hw/9pfs/9p-handle.c   |  710 
> > > > -------------------------------------------------
> > > >   hw/9pfs/Makefile.objs |    1
> > > >   qemu-deprecated.texi  |    8 -
> > > >   qemu-options.hx       |    8 -
> > > >   5 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 726 deletions(-)
> > > >   delete mode 100644 hw/9pfs/9p-handle.c  
> > >
> > > Well, it certainly doesn't drive -rc4 on its own, but as we may have an
> > > -rc4 for other reasons, maybe it could still be argued that this is 3.1
> > > material on the grounds of removing questionable code for less attack
> > > exposure?
> > >  
> >
> > Makes sense, as this is precisely the reason that led me to
> > deprecate this in the first place.  
> 
> I would prefer not to have a 700-line patch in rc4, even
> a negative-diffstat one. If it's not a definite problem
> then we shouldn't put the change in at this stage in the
> release process.
> 

I understand, and it's ok for me if this gets merged in 4.0.

Cheers,

--
Greg

> thanks
> -- PMM




reply via email to

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