On 10/28/2009 08:54 AM, Michael Goldish wrote:
- "Dor Laor" wrote:
On 10/12/2009 05:28 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
Hi Michael, I am reviewing your patchset and have just a minor
remark
to make here:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Michael Goldish
wrote:
This patch adds a n
- "Dor Laor" wrote:
> On 10/12/2009 05:28 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
> > Hi Michael, I am reviewing your patchset and have just a minor
> remark
> > to make here:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Michael Goldish
> wrote:
> >> This patch adds a new test that checks the timedr
On 10/12/2009 05:28 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
Hi Michael, I am reviewing your patchset and have just a minor remark
to make here:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Michael Goldish wrote:
This patch adds a new test that checks the timedrift introduced by migrations.
It uses the same par
- "Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues" wrote:
> Hi Michael, I am reviewing your patchset and have just a minor remark
> to make here:
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Michael Goldish
> wrote:
> > This patch adds a new test that checks the timedrift introduced by
> migrations.
> > It uses the same
Hi Michael, I am reviewing your patchset and have just a minor remark
to make here:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Michael Goldish wrote:
> This patch adds a new test that checks the timedrift introduced by migrations.
> It uses the same parameters used by the timedrift test to get the guest tim
