Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon wrote: > for qemu is probably not that much of a priority as they already have the > patches, most of them committed and the bugs are only in their development > tree which they don't release anyway, for kvm it is IMHO different since the > bugs are on released code with patch 2 (which ate 3 of my FreeBSD guests with > unrecoverable images which wouldn't even have a valid partition table) being > around since the qemu import of Oct 1 and therefore part of kvm-45 and all > releases up to the date. > > I understand though why you wouldn't like to divert from qemu, and I'll do my > best to try to get qemu to commit those patches so that any future conflicts > are resolved automatically, but as I said before, qemu just had different > priorities. > >
You make some good points; I'll respin the merge and this time bisect the problems and revert the offending patches. I'll add these patches as well if qemu hasn't merged it by that time. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
