[ofa-general] Re: [PATCH] osm/osm_mcast_mgr.c: coredump in ofed_1_2

[Sasha Khapyorsky]

On 08:43 Thu 27 Dec     , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 16:47 +0000, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
> > On 06:57 Thu 27 Dec     , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2007-12-26 at 15:42 +0000, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
> > > > On 13:51 Wed 26 Dec     , Yevgeny Kliteynik wrote:
> > > > > Hi Sasha,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Protecting against possible NULL returned by osm_node_get_remote_node().
> > > > > 
> > > > > Please apply this fix to branch ofed_1_2 only.
> > > > > It appears that this coredump has already been fixed for ofed_1_3.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Yevgeny Kliteynik <kliteyn at dev.mellanox.co.il>
> > > > 
> > > > Applied to ofed_1_2. Thanks.
> > > 
> > > Which ofed_1_2 tree ?
> > 
> >   ofed_1_2 branch of git://git.openfabrics.org/~sashak/management
> > 
> > > BTW, up to now, such patches have been rejected saying OFED 1.2 (for
> > > OpenSM) was not being maintained. Is there now a change of policy on
> > > this ?
> > 
> > Not really. As far as I remember it was first explicit patch for 1.2.
> 
> I don't think that's the case but has been for quite a while now since a
> number of 1.2 patches were "rejected" as being 1.2 and in fact there was
> some explicit email on whether this was to be done or not and the answer
> was a resounding NO.

I may be wrong about it, but IIRC it is all about outstanding counter
update fix in error path in the vendor layer, the patch was for the
master, and yes - I didn't want to backport it to 1.2 branch for "use
master, not 1.2" reason.

> I can dig out the emails if this is really needed.
> 
> > I don't backport non critical fixes and improvements from master to 1.2
> > - that is true.
> 
> There were a number of fixes originally supplied for 1.2 up ported to
> 1.3. Guess you could always consider them non critical although I would
> beg to differ on some of those.

Always - no, but in general I prefer to run master in the field.

Sasha