Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> writes: > On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 08:12:27AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Fabiano Rosas <faro...@suse.de> writes: >> >> > Caught by inspection, but ASAN also reports: >> > >> > Direct leak of 16 byte(s) in 1 object(s) allocated from: >> > #0 in malloc >> > #1 in g_malloc >> > #2 in g_memdup >> > #3 in qapi_clone_start_struct ../qapi/qapi-clone-visitor.c:40:12 >> > #4 in qapi_clone_start_list ../qapi/qapi-clone-visitor.c:59:12 >> > #5 in visit_start_list ../qapi/qapi-visit-core.c:80:10 >> > #6 in visit_type_BitmapMigrationNodeAliasList >> > qapi/qapi-visit-migration.c:639:10 >> > #7 in migrate_params_apply ../migration/options.c:1407:13 >> > #8 in qmp_migrate_set_parameters ../migration/options.c:1463:5 >> > #9 in qmp_marshal_migrate_set_parameters >> > qapi/qapi-commands-migration.c:214:5 >> > #10 in do_qmp_dispatch_bh ../qapi/qmp-dispatch.c:128:5 >> >> migration_instance_finalize() runs when a TYPE_MIGRATION object dies, we >> have just one such object, pointed to by @current_migration, and it >> lives until QEMU shuts down. >> >> So this is as harmless as they get. Please mentions this in the commit >> message, to guide backporters. > > If we do not copy qemu-stable, and do not attach Fixes, logically it should > imply no backport needed. Not sure if it was intentional, though..
Yes, qemu-stable@ and Fixes: are how we indicate "consider backporting this". But since that's easily forgotten, absence doesn't imply "no need to consider". > Agreed > some enrichment in the log would always be nicer. Spelling out the impact of the bug fixes is a good habit. Or in this case, the fact that it's not a bug. No biggie here, just nice. I like nice commit messages :) [...]
