On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 05:12:53AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 04:14:30PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > I'm not quite sure what the problem is (although the problem is in
> > xm_internal), but when you use xm_internal over remote, it sometimes
> > doesn't initi
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 04:14:30PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I'm not quite sure what the problem is (although the problem is in
xm_internal), but when you use xm_internal over remote, it sometimes
doesn't initialize its internal cache correctly, so it thinks that
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 04:14:30PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I'm not quite sure what the problem is (although the problem is in
> xm_internal), but when you use xm_internal over remote, it sometimes
> doesn't initialize its internal cache correctly, so it thinks that
> there are no inactiv
I'm not quite sure what the problem is (although the problem is in
xm_internal), but when you use xm_internal over remote, it sometimes
doesn't initialize its internal cache correctly, so it thinks that
there are no inactive domains.
The fix is a one-liner which I hit upon by accident -- I don't
