Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] arm devices: mark or remove implicit fallthroughs

[Markus Armbruster]

Peter Maydell <address@hidden> writes:

> On 21 January 2013 20:03, Blue Swirl <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Peter Maydell
>> <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> These patches either mark implicit fallthroughs in case statements
>>> or (in a few cases) remove them by putting in an explicit 'break'
>>> or 'return' rather than relying on the one in the following case.
>>> There is no behaviour change for any of these patches, and in all
>>> cases I've examined the code and am happy that the behaviour is
>>> intentional and correct.
>>
>> Would this be material for 1.4?
>
> Well, that depends on your philosophy about softfreeze periods.
> Personally I would not put these in 1.4 because they do not
> fix any actual bugs and I am pretty conservative about putting
> in code after softfreeze. On the other hand as changes go
> they're pretty safe so I don't have any positive objection
> to them going into 1.4.

http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/SoftFeatureFreeze

    By the date of the soft feature freeze, any major feature should
    have some code posted to the qemu-devel mailing list if it's
    targeting a given release.

Makes it pretty clear to me that "soft freeze" is about "major" and
"feature".  These patches are neither.  I'd take them.