Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] give a more useful diagnostic for tap-add failure w/ENOTSUP

"Daniel P. Berrange" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 02:07:32PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: >> I invoked virt-isntall with --network=bridge:eth1 >> rather than --network=bridge:br1 and got the latter >> (current) diagnostic below. This change makes it so >> in this relatively

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] give a more useful diagnostic for tap-add failure w/ENOTSUP

On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 02:07:32PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: > I invoked virt-isntall with --network=bridge:eth1 > rather than --network=bridge:br1 and got the latter > (current) diagnostic below. This change makes it so > in this relatively common case people get a slightly > more understandable

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] give a more useful diagnostic for tap-add failure w/ENOTSUP

On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 02:07:32PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: > I invoked virt-isntall with --network=bridge:eth1 > rather than --network=bridge:br1 and got the latter > (current) diagnostic below. This change makes it so > in this relatively common case people get a slightly > more understandable

[libvirt] [PATCH] give a more useful diagnostic for tap-add failure w/ENOTSUP

I invoked virt-isntall with --network=bridge:eth1 rather than --network=bridge:br1 and got the latter (current) diagnostic below. This change makes it so in this relatively common case people get a slightly more understandable diagnostic. >From 3d6dc8442fd9f1b0915c232040200154832fdf51 Mon Sep 17