Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 0/3] Fix io_timeout for sanlock

On 09/29/2016 10:06 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote: > On 15.09.2016 16:35, Michal Privoznik wrote: >> Just read the 3/3. I didn't know whether I should laugh or cry. I did both. >> >> Michal Privoznik (3): >> lock_driver_sanlock: Avoid global driver variable whenever possible >> m4: Check for sanlock_write_lockspace >> sanlock: Properly init io_timeout >> >> m4/virt-sanlock.m4 | 14 +++++--- >> src/locking/lock_driver_sanlock.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- >> 2 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) >> > > Thanks John for ACKing the series. I'm not quite sure whether I can push > it now that we are in the freeze. I mean it can be viewed as a bug fix, > so I'm inclined to push it. What are your thoughts? > From the aspect of you have a legitimate bug that's causing a feature to not work properly, sure I agree. From the aspect of I've pushed something during a freeze before and was told I shouldn't have, maybe I'm not the best person to ask ;-). BTW: I understand your point about not wanting to document a specific version since it's possible (I suppose) that the API could be backported to some earlier release (not that we'd ever do that). Still, I'm reacting to a feature someone may have thought was working that suddenly will cause a failure to start a domain if they don't have the new API, but did have the old API. At least a running guest won't "go missing". IOW: how can we inform the user that the minimum version we expected now changed because of some change in an underlying package we depend on.

All that said - push and say sorry later ;-)

John