On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 11:59:35AM -0400, David Lively wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 17:54 +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > Daniel Veillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> diff --git a/src/storage_conf.c b/src/storage_conf.c
> > >> index 2f6093b..37a2040 100644
> > >> --- a/src/storage_conf.c
> >
On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 17:54 +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Daniel Veillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> diff --git a/src/storage_conf.c b/src/storage_conf.c
> >> index 2f6093b..37a2040 100644
> >> --- a/src/storage_conf.c
> >> +++ b/src/storage_conf.c
> >> @@ -331,6 +331,8 @@ virStoragePoolDefPars
Daniel Veillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 11:34:46AM -0400, David Lively wrote:
>> Thanks Daniel. I just merged in your changes. You seem to be missing a
>> small incremental change (checking the strdup return value for NULL),
>> attached.
>
> yes, mea-culpa ! That w
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 11:34:46AM -0400, David Lively wrote:
> Thanks Daniel. I just merged in your changes. You seem to be missing a
> small incremental change (checking the strdup return value for NULL),
> attached.
yes, mea-culpa ! That what happens when looking a too old mail,
but i wante
Thanks Daniel. I just merged in your changes. You seem to be missing a
small incremental change (checking the strdup return value for NULL),
attached.
Dave
On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 16:17 +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 03:49:27PM -0400, David Lively wrote:
> > Hi Jim -
> >
On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 08:50 +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
> There, it'd be clearer to diagnose with something like
> "missing pool source device name", since there are a few
> other "name" elements.
I see Daniel V fixed this (and other) error messages to be less
ambiguous when he committed it earlier
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 03:49:27PM -0400, David Lively wrote:
> Hi Jim -
> I've attached a (very) small incremental patch (i.e., to be applied
> after the one you've already merged) that addresses a couple things I
> noticed missing:
> (a) documents the new element in formatstorage.html.in
>
David Lively <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've attached a (very) small incremental patch (i.e., to be applied
> after the one you've already merged) that addresses a couple things I
> noticed missing:
> (a) documents the new element in formatstorage.html.in
> (b) adds --source-name to the (
Hi Jim -
I've attached a (very) small incremental patch (i.e., to be applied
after the one you've already merged) that addresses a couple things I
noticed missing:
(a) documents the new element in formatstorage.html.in
(b) adds --source-name to the (optional) args for virsh pool-define-as
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:17:49AM -0400, David Lively wrote:
> Oops - that was against an old base. Sorry. Here's the new one.
> Also fixed a few other issues ...
Ok, this gets my vote to commit.
Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http:/
David Lively <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oops - that was against an old base. Sorry. Here's the new one.
Good timing.
I was in the process of replying,
after having done the merge and add-conn-arg bit.
> Also fixed a few other issues ...
ACK.
I compared the result of my merge/tweaks and your
Oops - that was against an old base. Sorry. Here's the new one.
Also fixed a few other issues ...
Dave
On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 12:12 -0400, David Lively wrote:
> Same patch, resubmitted after fixing allocation issue you pointed out.
> Looking more closely, I notice it was leaking when pool/source
Same patch, resubmitted after fixing allocation issue you pointed out.
Looking more closely, I notice it was leaking when pool/source/name was
specified. Just added a strdup for the other case (when
pool/source/name defaults to pool/name) and a VIR_FREE in the
destructor.
Dave
On Tue, 2008-08-12
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 10:49 +0100, Daniel Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 03:17:52PM -0400, David Lively wrote:
> > [*] Well ... almost. Note that directory pools have a similar issue --
> > the "source" of the pool is given by the -- there's no
> > . I suppose implementing directory
On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 03:17:52PM -0400, David Lively wrote:
> Daniel B proposed having storage pool discovery return a bunch of XML
> storage elements, rather than full elements (which
> contain "target-dependent" details like the local pool name and device
> or mount path -- things which don
On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 03:17:52PM -0400, David Lively wrote:
> Hi Folks -
>
> This small patch is a proposed prerequisite for the storage pool
> discovery patch I submitted last week.
>
> Daniel B proposed having storage pool discovery return a bunch of XML
> storage elements, rather than
Hi Folks -
This small patch is a proposed prerequisite for the storage pool
discovery patch I submitted last week.
Daniel B proposed having storage pool discovery return a bunch of XML
storage elements, rather than full elements (which
contain "target-dependent" details like the local poo
17 matches
Mail list logo
