On 02/24/2015 07:03 AM, Max Reitz wrote: > On 2015-02-24 at 04:43, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com> writes: >> >>> s->blocker is really only used in hw/scsi/virtio-scsi.c; the only places >>> where it is used in hw/scsi/virtio-scsi-dataplane.c is when it is >>> allocated and when it is freed. That does not make a whole lot of sense >>> (and is actually wrong because this leads to s->blocker potentially >>> being NULL when blk_op_block_all() is called in virtio-scsi.c), so move >>> the allocation and destruction of s->blocker to blk_op_block_all() and >>> blk_op_unblock_all() in virtio-scsi.c, respectively. >>> >> Why do you put your nice reproducer below the --- divider? I rather >> like bug fixing commits come with reproducers in the commit message.
As do I :) >> >> [...] > > Because then I'm afraid that Eric complains because I used echo -e > instead of printf. I might point out the non-portability, but for a commit message, I'm perfectly fine leaving a non-portable construct in place. I'm only going to ask for a respin if 'echo -e' is used in the patch body. > > Seriously speaking, I don't mind putting it into the commit message. > I'll wait for reviews on the change itself, and then either send a v2 > with the reproducer included in the commit message or hope for a > maintainer to fix it up himself (which I'd be totally fine with *hint > hint*). Up to the maintainer on that front, but if it helps, then with the amended commit message: Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
