Le 12/02/2020 à 13:10, Eric Blake a écrit : > On 2/12/20 3:24 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote: >> Le 06/02/2020 à 18:38, Eric Blake a écrit : >>> Detected by a hang in the libnbd testsuite. If a client requests >>> multiple meta contexts (both base:allocation and qemu:dirty-bitmap:x) >>> at the same time, our attempt to silence a false-positive warning >>> about a potential uninitialized variable introduced botched logic: we >>> were short-circuiting the second context, and never sending the >>> NBD_REPLY_FLAG_DONE. Combining two 'if' into one 'if/else' in >>> bdf200a55 was wrong (I'm a bit embarrassed that such a change was my >>> initial suggestion after the v1 patch, then I did not review the v2 >>> patch that actually got committed). Revert that, and instead silence >>> the false positive warning by replacing 'return ret' with 'return 0' >>> (the value it always has at that point in the code, even though it >>> eluded the deduction abilities of the robot that reported the false >>> positive). >>> >>> Fixes: bdf200a5535 >>> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> >>> It's never fun when a regression is caused by a patch taken through >>> qemu-trivial, proving that the patch was not trivial after all. >> >> Do you want this one be merged using the trivial branch? > > Up to you; I'm also fine taking it through my NBD tree as I have a few > other NBD patches landing soon. >
For the moment, I have only one patch in my queue so I think you can take it. Thanks, Laurent
