On 04/08/2014 07:28 AM, Martin Kletzander wrote: > I wanted to back-port 736e017e as requested in Bug 1058149 [1], > because it fixes a crash. However, it requires 5b3492fa and e9d09fe1 > to be back-ported as well, so I wanted to confirm it's still OK when > it's not a simple two-liner or similar (and combined with the low > probability of the crash to happen). What's the stand on this? > > Martin > > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058149 IMO both those commits look fine, I've backported large cleanups in the past to ease backporting bug fixes. Thanks, Cole -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list