On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 at 14:56, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 at 14:52, Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:28:19 +0200 > > Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > On 23/04/2021 15.06, Peter Maydell wrote: > > > > On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 at 13:22, Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >> What's the verdict on this one? I plan to queue this to s390-next; but > > > >> if we end up doing an -rc5, it might qualify as a regression fix. > > > > > > > > What's your opinion? I think we do need an rc5 for the network backend > > > > hotplug crash. I don't want to open the doors for lots of new fixes > > > > just because we've got another rc, but on the other hand this one > > > > does look like it's a pretty small and safe fix, and letting > > > > intermittent > > > > crash bugs out into the wild seems like it could lead to a lot of > > > > annoying re-investigation of the same bug if it's reported by users > > > > later... So I kind of lean towards putting it in rc5. > > > > > > IMHO: It's in a s390x-only file, within a #ifdef CONFIG_USER_ONLY ... so > > > the > > > damage this could do is very, very limited, indeed. Thus I'd also suggest > > > to > > > include it in a rc5. > > > > Exactly, the benefits outweigh the risk IMHO. > > > > Peter, do you want to pick this one directly, or should I send you a pull > > req? > > I'll pick it directly, thanks.
...applied to target-arm.next, thanks. -- PMM
