Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> writes:
> On 2018-11-09 09:21, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>> On 09/11/2018 09:13, Li Qiang wrote:
>>> In set_netdev(), the peers[i] is initialized
>>> qemu_find_net_clients_except() when i is in
>>> 0 between 'queues' it can't be NULL.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Li Qiang <liq...@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>> hw/core/qdev-properties-system.c | 4 ----
>>> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/core/qdev-properties-system.c
>>> b/hw/core/qdev-properties-system.c
>>> index 8b22fb5..b45a7ef 100644
>>> --- a/hw/core/qdev-properties-system.c
>>> +++ b/hw/core/qdev-properties-system.c
>>> @@ -288,10 +288,6 @@ static void set_netdev(Object *obj, Visitor *v, const
>>> char *name,
>>> }
>>>
>>> for (i = 0; i < queues; i++) {
>>> - if (peers[i] == NULL) {
>>> - err = -ENOENT;
>>> - goto out;
>>> - }
>>>
>>> if (peers[i]->peer) {
>>> err = -EEXIST;
>>>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Laurent Vivier <lviv...@redhat.com>
>
> So who can pick up such patches? We don't have a maintainer for the QDEV
> subsystem anymore... should it go via qemu-trivial?
We've never had a formal qdev maintainer.
"qdev is too important to continue much longer without a maintainer."
Message-ID: <m37h8v85r7....@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2011-06/msg01053.html
The closest we got to appointing one was probably here:
Message-ID: <56b33c2a.8030...@redhat.com>
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-02/msg00949.html
In my opinion, not having a maintainer push or at least direct the cart
is one of the reasons of the relatively sad state of qdev.
Same for QOM, where we had an active maintainer for a while, but no
more.
