On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 15:02:18 +
Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 03:54:57PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 13:59:09 +
> > Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 02:55:10PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 4 Mar 201
On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 03:54:57PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 13:59:09 +
> Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 02:55:10PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 09:11:19 +0100
> > > Thomas Huth wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 01/03/2019 18.4
On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 13:59:09 +
Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 02:55:10PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 09:11:19 +0100
> > Thomas Huth wrote:
> >
> > > On 01/03/2019 18.48, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > So I think this patch has to
On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 02:55:10PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 09:11:19 +0100
> Thomas Huth wrote:
>
> > On 01/03/2019 18.48, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > [...]
> > > So I think this patch has to be dropped & replaced with one that
> > > simply documents that memdev syntax i
On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 09:11:19 +0100
Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 01/03/2019 18.48, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> [...]
> > So I think this patch has to be dropped & replaced with one that
> > simply documents that memdev syntax is preferred.
>
> That's definitely not enough. I've had a couple of cases
On 01/03/2019 18.48, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
[...]
> So I think this patch has to be dropped & replaced with one that
> simply documents that memdev syntax is preferred.
That's definitely not enough. I've had a couple of cases already where
we documented that certain options should not be used a
