Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: > On 21 January 2013 20:03, Blue Swirl <blauwir...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Peter Maydell >> <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: >>> These patches either mark implicit fallthroughs in case statements >>> or (in a few cases) remove them by putting in an explicit 'break' >>> or 'return' rather than relying on the one in the following case. >>> There is no behaviour change for any of these patches, and in all >>> cases I've examined the code and am happy that the behaviour is >>> intentional and correct. >> >> Would this be material for 1.4? > > Well, that depends on your philosophy about softfreeze periods. > Personally I would not put these in 1.4 because they do not > fix any actual bugs and I am pretty conservative about putting > in code after softfreeze. On the other hand as changes go > they're pretty safe so I don't have any positive objection > to them going into 1.4.
http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/SoftFeatureFreeze By the date of the soft feature freeze, any major feature should have some code posted to the qemu-devel mailing list if it's targeting a given release. Makes it pretty clear to me that "soft freeze" is about "major" and "feature". These patches are neither. I'd take them.
