Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: Call for tools backports (was Re: preparations for
4.13.3)"):
> The effects of the bug were twofold:
> * A client actually requesting Reset_watches has the request rejected
> * A client actually requesting Restrict got Reset_watches instead
>
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Call for tools backports (was Re: preparations for
4.13.3)"):
> Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: Call for tools backports (was Re: preparations for
> 4.13.3)"):
> > These are general backport requests, not specifically for 4.13
>
> Than
On 19/03/2021 13:21, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> a6ed77f1e033 - oxenstored: fix ABI breakage introduced in Xen 4.9.0
>>
>> The final one is an ABI change, but fixing a regression.
> I'm not sure about this but I think the effect can only be on
> "Reset_watches" ? I guess I will take it.
The effects of
Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: Call for tools backports (was Re: preparations for
4.13.3)"):
> These are general backport requests, not specifically for 4.13
Thanks!
> d92ba1aa7cf8 - tools/ocaml: libxb: Harden stub_header_of_string()
> 59b087e39544 - tools/ocaml: Fix stubs build
On 19.03.2021 12:57, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> Do we want to backport the -Og fixes so we can get ABI checking working?
Do we have a finalized picture of how this checking is going to
work? I was under the impression that this is still in flux, in
which case I'm not convinced of backporting changes j
On 17/03/2021 14:55, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Julien Grall writes ("Re: preparations for 4.13.3"):
>> On 08/03/2021 09:49, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> the release is overdue (my apologies). Please point out backports
>>> you find missing from the respective staging branches, but which
>>> you c
Hi Ian,
On 17/03/2021 14:55, Ian Jackson wrote:
Julien Grall writes ("Re: preparations for 4.13.3"):
On 08/03/2021 09:49, Jan Beulich wrote:
All,
the release is overdue (my apologies). Please point out backports
you find missing from the respective staging branches, but which
you consider rel
