search

rust-vmm / linux-loader

Linux kernel loader
Apache License 2.0
181 stars 55 forks source link

build(deps): update vm-memory requirement from 0.12.2 to 0.13.0 #162

Closed dependabot[bot] closed 11 months ago

dependabot[bot] commented 11 months ago

Updates the requirements on vm-memory to permit the latest version.

Changelog

Sourced from vm-memory's changelog.

[v0.13.0]

Added

  • [#247](rust-vmm/vm-memory#247) Add ReadVolatile and WriteVolatile traits which are equivalents of Read/Write with volatile access semantics.

Changed

  • [#247](rust-vmm/vm-memory#247) Deprecate Bytes::{read_from, read_exact_from, write_to, write_all_to}. Instead use ReadVolatile/WriteVolatile, which do not incur the performance penalty of copying to hypervisor memory due to Read/Write being incompatible with volatile semantics (see also #217).

[v0.12.2]

Fixed

  • [#251](rust-vmm/vm-memory#251): Inserted checks that verify that the value returned by VolatileMemory::get_slice is of the correct length.

Deprecated

  • [#244](rust-vmm/vm-memory#241) Deprecate volatile memory's as_ptr() interfaces. The new interfaces to be used instead are: ptr_guard() and ptr_guard_mut().

[v0.12.1]

Fixed

[v0.12.0]

Added

[v0.11.0]

Added

Fixed

  • [#217](rust-vmm/vm-memory#217) Fix vm-memory internally taking rust-style slices to guest memory in ways that could potentially cause

... (truncated)

Commits
  • a6bcb43 chore: Prepare release 0.13.0
  • 51a6c74 Add CHANGELOG entry about ReadVolatile/WriteVolatile
  • 20135ce Adjust coverage
  • 7a911a4 Add read_volatile_from/write_volatile_to to GuestMemory
  • 9c3e6aa test: Add tests for VolatileRead/Write
  • 0173112 feat: Introduce Read/WriteVolatile traits
  • See full diff in compare view


You can trigger a rebase of this PR by commenting @dependabot rebase.

Dependabot commands and options
You can trigger Dependabot actions by commenting on this PR: - `@dependabot rebase` will rebase this PR - `@dependabot recreate` will recreate this PR, overwriting any edits that have been made to it - `@dependabot merge` will merge this PR after your CI passes on it - `@dependabot squash and merge` will squash and merge this PR after your CI passes on it - `@dependabot cancel merge` will cancel a previously requested merge and block automerging - `@dependabot reopen` will reopen this PR if it is closed - `@dependabot close` will close this PR and stop Dependabot recreating it. You can achieve the same result by closing it manually - `@dependabot show ignore conditions` will show all of the ignore conditions of the specified dependency - `@dependabot ignore this major version` will close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this major version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself) - `@dependabot ignore this minor version` will close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this minor version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself) - `@dependabot ignore this dependency` will close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this dependency (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
roypat commented 11 months ago

This is blocked on https://github.com/rust-vmm/vm-memory/pull/256

stefano-garzarella commented 11 months ago

@roypat for bisectability would it be better to merge the first 2 commits together? IIUC the first one fails to compile right?

roypat commented 11 months ago

@roypat for bisectability would it be better to merge the first 2 commits together? IIUC the first one fails to compile right?

Mh, I think usually we try to keep the dependabot-created commits untouched, and add the fixes in additional commits onto the dependabot branch.

stefano-garzarella commented 11 months ago

@roypat for bisectability would it be better to merge the first 2 commits together? IIUC the first one fails to compile right?

Mh, I think usually we try to keep the dependabot-created commits untouched, and add the fixes in additional commits onto the dependabot branch.

Okay, sorry I'm not codeowner of this crate, so I didn't know about this policy. I personally prefer to try to have every commit buildable, but it’s up to you ;-)

rbradford commented 11 months ago

@roypat for bisectability would it be better to merge the first 2 commits together? IIUC the first one fails to compile right?

Mh, I think usually we try to keep the dependabot-created commits untouched, and add the fixes in additional commits onto the dependabot branch.

I don't think that sounds like a very good idea from a bisectability perspective. I don't think the dependabot's feelings will be hurt if you take it's commit and git commit --amend --reset-author and turn it into a generic dependency bump commit.

roypat commented 11 months ago

@roypat for bisectability would it be better to merge the first 2 commits together? IIUC the first one fails to compile right?

Mh, I think usually we try to keep the dependabot-created commits untouched, and add the fixes in additional commits onto the dependabot branch.

I don't think that sounds like a very good idea from a bisectability perspective. I don't think the dependabot's feelings will be hurt if you take it's commit and git commit --amend --reset-author and turn it into a generic dependency bump commit.

Alright, if we don't care about preserving the dependabot commits then I don't see any problems either :) I've squashed the first two commits. To be fair, its not like it didn't compile, there were simply new compiler warnings that I don't think would cause any problems with bisection.

epilys commented 11 months ago

+1 on squashing dependabot's commits. You can mention it was originally an automatic dependabot PR in the commit description if you like.

rbradford commented 11 months ago

Alright, if we don't care about preserving the dependabot commits then I don't see any problems either :) I've squashed the first two commits. To be fair, its not like it didn't compile, there were simply new compiler warnings that I don't think would cause any problems with bisection.

Ah, my mistake - I didn't realise it was "just a warning". I can see the merits of both ways when it comes to a warning but for build errors I do think it's better for the tree to be bisectable.