From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 655581FF138 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2026 10:57:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 632583190C; Wed, 18 Mar 2026 10:58:01 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 10:57:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH qemu 1/2] update submodule and patches to QEMU 10.2.1 To: Fiona Ebner , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260312114417.82984-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20260312114417.82984-2-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <9f4cf875-5b5c-4343-851f-8a65fc5879da@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <9f4cf875-5b5c-4343-851f-8a65fc5879da@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1773827802873 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -1.076 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.408 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.819 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.903 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: TD7ELVBKWJ4BJLSNJPUZIU7ZZLJ74ZYH X-Message-ID-Hash: TD7ELVBKWJ4BJLSNJPUZIU7ZZLJ74ZYH X-MailFrom: t.lamprecht@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Am 18.03.26 um 10:46 schrieb Fiona Ebner: > Am 17.03.26 um 5:58 PM schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: >> Am 12.03.26 um 13:13 schrieb Fiona Ebner: >>> @@ -715,7 +715,12 @@ index 0000000000..56e0fa6c69 >>> + >>> + migration_incoming_state_destroy(); >>> + if (ret < 0) { >>> -+ error_setg_errno(errp, -ret, "Error while loading VM state"); >>> ++ if (local_err) { >>> ++ error_setg_errno(errp, -ret, "Error while loading VM state - %s", >>> ++ error_get_pretty(local_err)); >> >> Would we need to free the local_err here? But in any case a tiny nit >> and not really relevant in terms of leaking memory due to being in >> a rather unlikely error branch. > > Yes, you are right. If error_propagate() is not used, a local error must > be freed. There are quite a few more instances where errors are not > freed in the surrounding code. There is an error_propagate_prepend() > helper that could be used. I mean, if QEMU exits due to the error anyway it won't really matter. > Should I send a v2 or a follow-up? Can be addressed in a follow-up.