Eric Blake writes:
> On 06/03/2016 06:09 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Most patches are ready as is or with minor touch-ups.
>>
>> I'd probably drop PATCH 01. The file name collision no longer exists,
>> and moving files just to improve their names a bit doesn't seem worth
>> the bother.
>
>
On 06/03/2016 06:09 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Most patches are ready as is or with minor touch-ups.
>
> I'd probably drop PATCH 01. The file name collision no longer exists,
> and moving files just to improve their names a bit doesn't seem worth
> the bother.
It's a bit more churn to the re
Most patches are ready as is or with minor touch-ups.
I'd probably drop PATCH 01. The file name collision no longer exists,
and moving files just to improve their names a bit doesn't seem worth
the bother.
There are memory leaks in PATCH 12 and 24 (see review of PATCH 24).
PATCH 13 needs more w
Meant to inquire about the next batch, but of course you beat me to the
punch :)
I'll be on vacation next week, so review will be delayed.
On 05/18/2016 10:40 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> Hard prerequisites (for all patches to apply):
> Markus' qjson movement:
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-05/msg00471.html
>
> Soft prerequisites (for valgrind to be happy with all touched tests):
> My fix for memleak in range.h:
> ht
Hard prerequisites (for all patches to apply):
Markus' qjson movement:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-05/msg00471.html
Soft prerequisites (for valgrind to be happy with all touched tests):
My fix for memleak in range.h:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-05/msg0
