On 2019/3/18 20:49, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 12:34, gengdongjiu <gengdong...@huawei.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2019/3/16 4:11, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> >>>> --- >>>> Should we try to put this in for rc1? Not sure... Testing >>>> definitely appreciated. >>> You might include it for rc1 and we still have rc2/rc3 to revert it. >> >> why we still have rc2/rc3 to revert it? > > I think Philippe's point is that it's reasonably safe to > apply this patch in rc1 (ie now), because if we do do that > and then discover that we have some other bug in it, we > still have plenty of time to take the patch out again > before release. > > (If we did discover another bug in this patch in future, I > would favour reverting it for the 4.0 release rather than > trying to fix whatever that bug was, because two unexpected > bugs in the patch means I clearly didn't understand > the code well enough to produce a reliable patch. The cases > that this patch fixes are pretty rare -- it does fix a bug > but only in handling of some cases of debugging a KVM guest; > but the patch potentially affects the behaviour of any > KVM guest, even if the user isn't trying to debug. So it's > riskier than some other kinds of change, and on balance > that means that when we're making a decision at rc2 or rc3 > I'm more in favour of just reverting it rather than > applying what we hope is a fix.)
Got it, understand it now, thanks very much for Peter's detailed explanation. > > thanks > -- PMM > > . >