On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 06:09:42AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote: > On 02/25/2015 12:20 AM, Martin Kletzander wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 09:04:00AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote: > >> On 02/24/2015 09:00 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > >>> Needed to silence a valgrind detection of uninitialized memory: > >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174147 > >>> > >>> * .gnulib: Update to latest. > >>> * bootstrap: Resync to gnulib. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> > >>> I've missed RC1, so I'll wait for a review on this one (are we sure > >>> that RC2 will be enough time to ensure the gnulib update doesn't > >>> cause regressions, basically). > >> > > > > Is it worth risking that due to one valgrind warning? I don't > > remember more than maybe one time that gnulib caused a problem, but > > who knows. > > And the valgrind warning is harmless - it's complaining about passing > uninitialized memory to a syscall, but that memory lives in the padding > of a struct, and none of the code is actually acting on that memory > (either on our side, or in the syscall). If we want to just live with > the warning until after the release, that would also be okay - we have > up until the RC2 date to make the decision. > Personally, the valgrind warning seems harmless enough to me that I'd rather wait until the gnulib update introduces a more important bugfix, only to reduce the chance of bisecting across gnulib updates. :) Jan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list