On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 03:11:35PM -0500, David Lively wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 18:33 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 01:28:23PM -0500, David Lively wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 16:49 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:41:43A
On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 18:33 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 01:28:23PM -0500, David Lively wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 16:49 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:41:43AM -0500, David Lively wrote:
> > > > While starting to think about Win
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 01:28:23PM -0500, David Lively wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 16:49 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:41:43AM -0500, David Lively wrote:
> > > While starting to think about Windows compability, I realized the newly
> > > exposed API for register
On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 16:49 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:41:43AM -0500, David Lively wrote:
> > While starting to think about Windows compability, I realized the newly
> > exposed API for registering an external EventImpl is not adequate.
> > Currently it's assuming
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:41:43AM -0500, David Lively wrote:
> While starting to think about Windows compability, I realized the newly
> exposed API for registering an external EventImpl is not adequate.
> Currently it's assuming 32-bit unix fds. But Windows uses a pointer
> (HANDLE) here. So we
While starting to think about Windows compability, I realized the newly
exposed API for registering an external EventImpl is not adequate.
Currently it's assuming 32-bit unix fds. But Windows uses a pointer
(HANDLE) here. So we need to generalize this interface so it can be
implemented for 64-bit
