On 8/26/20 4:21 PM, Ján Tomko wrote:
On a Wednesday in 2020, Laine Stump wrote:
On 8/26/20 9:00 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 8/26/20 7:22 AM, Laine Stump wrote:
There have been some reports that, due to libvirt always trying to
assign the lowest numbered macvtap / tap device name possible,
On a Wednesday in 2020, Laine Stump wrote:
On 8/26/20 9:00 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 8/26/20 7:22 AM, Laine Stump wrote:
There have been some reports that, due to libvirt always trying to
assign the lowest numbered macvtap / tap device name possible, a new
guest would sometimes be started
On 8/26/20 9:00 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 8/26/20 7:22 AM, Laine Stump wrote:
There have been some reports that, due to libvirt always trying to
assign the lowest numbered macvtap / tap device name possible, a new
guest would sometimes be started using the same tap device name as
previously
On 8/26/20 7:22 AM, Laine Stump wrote:
There have been some reports that, due to libvirt always trying to
assign the lowest numbered macvtap / tap device name possible, a new
guest would sometimes be started using the same tap device name as
previously used by another guest that is in the process
There have been some reports that, due to libvirt always trying to
assign the lowest numbered macvtap / tap device name possible, a new
guest would sometimes be started using the same tap device name as
previously used by another guest that is in the process of being
destroyed *as the new guest is
