Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> Both of these will be fixed in a future series that >>> stops the sequencer calling setenv(). >> If it gets fixed in a future step in the same series, that is a >> different matter, but if it is easy enough not to deliberately >> introduce a new leak, we'd prefer to do so. > > It's a couple of patches to fix which are more or less finished, I'm > planning to send them once this series is in next. So we will do the "add a known breakage of the same kind as there exists others, and then later fix them all up, including the one that is added by this series, because fixes are non-trivial and this topic is easier to finish if we allowed to add a known breakage" approach? Just making sure it is what you plan to do. Thanks.
