On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 12:03 -0400, Michael Goldish wrote:
> - "sudhir kumar" wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Michael Goldish
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > - "sudhir kumar" wrote:
> > >
> > >> This patch does two small things.
> > >> 1. Prints the guest login command to debug messa
- "sudhir kumar" wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Michael Goldish
> wrote:
> >
> > - "sudhir kumar" wrote:
> >
> >> This patch does two small things.
> >> 1. Prints the guest login command to debug messages.
> >
> > Why do we want to do that?
> I do not see any harm in that. We
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Michael Goldish wrote:
>
> - "sudhir kumar" wrote:
>
>> This patch does two small things.
>> 1. Prints the guest login command to debug messages.
>
> Why do we want to do that?
I do not see any harm in that. We are logging "trying to login". If
sometimes login
- "sudhir kumar" wrote:
> This patch does two small things.
> 1. Prints the guest login command to debug messages.
Why do we want to do that?
> 2. Changes the guest login timeout to 240 seconds. I see the timeout
> for
> *.wait_for() functions in boot test is 240 seconds, while in reboot i
Ah!
As reported earlier the patch might be wrapped up. So sending as an
attachment too.
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:58 PM, sudhir kumar wrote:
> This patch does two small things.
> 1. Prints the guest login command to debug messages.
> 2. Changes the guest login timeout to 240 seconds. I see the tim
