On 2017-11-10 18:47, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 10.11.2017 um 18:36 hat Max Reitz geschrieben: >> On 2017-11-10 10:16, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>> Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com> writes: >>> >>>> bdrv_reopen_prepare() assumes that all BDS options are strings, which is >>>> not necessarily correct. This series introduces a new qobject_is_equal() >>>> function which can be used to test whether any options have changed, >>>> independently of their type. >>> >>> Series looks ready to me. It touches QAPI to achieve its purpose in the >>> block layer; I'd be fine with merging it via a block tree. >> >> Thanks! So now it's my problem to figure out whether this is 2.11 >> material...? :-) > > The test case in patch 5 segfaults without the series. Why would it not > be a bug fix (= 2.11 material)?
Because it adds a whole lot of QAPI code, and the segfault is a clear NULL pointer dereference which you can only get through HMP. But then again, the only place where the new code is used is from the place of the bug fix itself, so I guess no regressions are possible. So if it is a bug fix, why have you not applied it? :-) Applied to my block branch for 2.11: https://github.com/XanClic/qemu/commits/block Max
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
