On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 05:10:46PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 12:08:26PM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 04:39:03PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > The code for dealing with the paravirt framebuffer was missing code to
> > > deal
> >
On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 05:16:28PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >The code for dealing with the paravirt framebuffer was missing code to deal
> >with an explicit vncdisplay=N setting - only working for vncunused=1. It
> >was also not flexible enough in processing t
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
The code for dealing with the paravirt framebuffer was missing code to deal
with an explicit vncdisplay=N setting - only working for vncunused=1. It
was also not flexible enough in processing the 2 different styles of FB
config.
I too am having trouble following the e
On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 12:08:26PM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 04:39:03PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > The code for dealing with the paravirt framebuffer was missing code to deal
> > with an explicit vncdisplay=N setting - only working for vncunused=1. It
> > wa
On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 04:39:03PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> The code for dealing with the paravirt framebuffer was missing code to deal
> with an explicit vncdisplay=N setting - only working for vncunused=1. It
> was also not flexible enough in processing the 2 different styles of FB
> c
The code for dealing with the paravirt framebuffer was missing code to deal
with an explicit vncdisplay=N setting - only working for vncunused=1. It
was also not flexible enough in processing the 2 different styles of FB
config.
Dan.
--
|=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +
