On 12/3/19 11:52 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
It's just a memory leak, but it's a regression in 4.2.
Should we take it into 4.2?
Sorry, I was on holiday and then jury service, so I missed any chance at
getting this into -rc3. The memory leak only happens on failure, and
you'd have to be pretty desperate to purposefully attempt to open a lot
of NBD devices where you know you'll get a failure just to trigger
enough of a leak to cause the OOM-killer to target qemu. So I'm fine if
this is deferred to 5.0, and just cc's qemu-stable (now done).
I'll queue this through my NBD tree for 5.0.
29.11.2019 10:25, pannengy...@huawei.com wrote:
From: PanNengyuan <pannengy...@huawei.com>
Reported-by: Euler Robot <euler.ro...@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: PanNengyuan <pannengy...@huawei.com>
I'm not one to tell you that your name is written incorrectly, but it
does look odd to have a single word rather than a space between two
capitalized portions. If that's really how you want your S-o-b and
authorship to appear, I'm happy to preserve it; but you may want to
consider updating your git settings, and posting a v4 with an updated
spelling if you would prefer something different. (It is also
acceptable to use UTF-8 characters; some people like listing an S-o-b in
both native characters and a Westernized variant).
May add:
Fixes: 8f071c9db506e03ab
Yes, information like that helps in deciding how long the problem has
been present (in this case, it is indeed a regression added in 4.2, even
if minor in nature).
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
