On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 01:28:22PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:02:24PM +0200, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
> >On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 11:27:36AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 05:49:54PM +0200, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
> >> >Currently we consider all
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:02:24PM +0200, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 11:27:36AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 05:49:54PM +0200, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
>Currently we consider all UNIX paths with specific prefix as generated
>by libvirt, but that's a wrong a
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 11:27:36AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 05:49:54PM +0200, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
> >Currently we consider all UNIX paths with specific prefix as generated
> >by libvirt, but that's a wrong assumption. Let's make the detection
>
>
> That assumptio
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 05:49:54PM +0200, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
Currently we consider all UNIX paths with specific prefix as generated
by libvirt, but that's a wrong assumption. Let's make the detection
That assumption is pretty OK from my POV, any name that's not generated
by libvirt under tha
Currently we consider all UNIX paths with specific prefix as generated
by libvirt, but that's a wrong assumption. Let's make the detection
better by actually checking whether the whole path matches one of the
paths that we generate or generated in the past.
Resolves: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/s
