[dm-devel] [PATCH 5/5] libmultipath fix daemon memory leak in disassemble_map

[lixiaokeng]

Hi Martin,
   Thanks for your answers. I understand the relationship between branches.

On 2020/8/19 16:26, Martin Wilck wrote:
> Hello lixiaokeng,
> 
> Thanks again for your contribution.
> 
> On Wed, 2020-08-19 at 09:50 +0800, lixiaokeng wrote:
>>
>> If checking is_deamon is deleted, there are many other things need be
>> done like in
>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2020-July/msg00245.html. And
>> this
>> branch develops from 0.8.3 but upstream_queue is mainline which
>> develops from
>> 0.8.4.
> 
> This is a misunderstanding. My upstream-queue branch is *not* mainline.
> Mainline is http://git.opensvc.com/multipath-tools/.git. Also, my
> entire patch series (link above) was based on upstream-queue, which in
> turn was based on 0.8.4, not 0.8.3.
> 
> As the name says, "upstream-queue" represents the queue of pending
> patches which have at least one positive review (and no negative ones).
> The intention is 1. to provide an overview for myself and other
> interested parties, and 2. to simplify matters for the actual
> maintainer, Christophe, when he applies patches onto mainline.
> 
> My patch series changes the same code path as this one, and I think it
> solves the same issue, albeit differently. Most of my series has
> meanwhile been positively reviewed by Ben, and the remaining open
> issues are in other parts of the series. I'll hopefully be able to push
> it to upstream-queue soon. IMO it makes little sense to push changes to
> upstream-queue which are going to be removed again when my series is
> applied (I don't intend to start using merge operations in this
> branch).
> 
> Christophe is on the recipients list of your patch. He may of course
> decide to apply your patch before my series, in which case I'll have to
> rebase mine. But he'll probably have other prior patches to look at
> first before he gets down to this one.
> 
> Regards,
> Martin
>