On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 03:34:16PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 03.04.13 at 15:56, William Dauchy wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> ChangeLog-3.8.3 for example has
> >
> > oh sorry, you are right. I wasn't looking is the 3.8.x branch.
> > The thing is, the
>>> On 03.04.13 at 15:56, William Dauchy wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> ChangeLog-3.8.3 for example has
>
> oh sorry, you are right. I wasn't looking is the 3.8.x branch.
> The thing is, the revert seems present only in 3.8.x branch. For
> example in 3.4.x the
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> ChangeLog-3.8.3 for example has
oh sorry, you are right. I wasn't looking is the 3.8.x branch.
The thing is, the revert seems present only in 3.8.x branch. For
example in 3.4.x the last patch is still 01c681d
Should we consider this normal or
>>> On 03.04.13 at 15:25, William Dauchy wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Iirc we requested the earlier commit to be removed from stable
>> trees, and I think Greg also did so.
>
> I'm sorry but I'm unable to find a revert of 01c681d in stable tree.
Hello Jan,
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Iirc we requested the earlier commit to be removed from stable
> trees, and I think Greg also did so.
I'm sorry but I'm unable to find a revert of 01c681d in stable tree.
Regards,
--
William
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send
>>> On 03.04.13 at 14:56, William Dauchy wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 3:34 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
>> additional information:
>> before commit 01c681d4c70d64cb72142a2823f27c4146a02e63, the value printed
>> here was bogus, as it was the guest provided value from req->u.rw.handle
>> rather
Hello,
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 3:34 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
> additional information:
> before commit 01c681d4c70d64cb72142a2823f27c4146a02e63, the value printed
> here was bogus, as it was the guest provided value from req->u.rw.handle
> rather than the actual device.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chen
Hello,
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 3:34 AM, Chen Gang gang.c...@asianux.com wrote:
additional information:
before commit 01c681d4c70d64cb72142a2823f27c4146a02e63, the value printed
here was bogus, as it was the guest provided value from req-u.rw.handle
rather than the actual device.
On 03.04.13 at 14:56, William Dauchy wdau...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 3:34 AM, Chen Gang gang.c...@asianux.com wrote:
additional information:
before commit 01c681d4c70d64cb72142a2823f27c4146a02e63, the value printed
here was bogus, as it was the guest provided value from
Hello Jan,
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Jan Beulich jbeul...@suse.com wrote:
Iirc we requested the earlier commit to be removed from stable
trees, and I think Greg also did so.
I'm sorry but I'm unable to find a revert of 01c681d in stable tree.
Regards,
--
William
--
To unsubscribe from
On 03.04.13 at 15:25, William Dauchy wdau...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Jan Beulich jbeul...@suse.com wrote:
Iirc we requested the earlier commit to be removed from stable
trees, and I think Greg also did so.
I'm sorry but I'm unable to find a revert of 01c681d in
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Jan Beulich jbeul...@suse.com wrote:
ChangeLog-3.8.3 for example has
oh sorry, you are right. I wasn't looking is the 3.8.x branch.
The thing is, the revert seems present only in 3.8.x branch. For
example in 3.4.x the last patch is still 01c681d
Should we consider
On 03.04.13 at 15:56, William Dauchy wdau...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Jan Beulich jbeul...@suse.com wrote:
ChangeLog-3.8.3 for example has
oh sorry, you are right. I wasn't looking is the 3.8.x branch.
The thing is, the revert seems present only in 3.8.x branch. For
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 03:34:16PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.04.13 at 15:56, William Dauchy wdau...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Jan Beulich jbeul...@suse.com wrote:
ChangeLog-3.8.3 for example has
oh sorry, you are right. I wasn't looking is the 3.8.x branch.
于 2013年03月01日 21:43, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk 写道:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:34:23AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>>
>> if call xen_vbd_translate failed, the preq.dev will be not initialized.
>> so use blkif->vbd.pdevice instead (still better to print relative info).
>>
>> additional information:
>>
于 2013年03月01日 21:43, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk 写道:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:34:23AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
if call xen_vbd_translate failed, the preq.dev will be not initialized.
so use blkif-vbd.pdevice instead (still better to print relative info).
additional information:
before
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:34:23AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>
> if call xen_vbd_translate failed, the preq.dev will be not initialized.
> so use blkif->vbd.pdevice instead (still better to print relative info).
>
> additional information:
> before commit
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:34:23AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
if call xen_vbd_translate failed, the preq.dev will be not initialized.
so use blkif-vbd.pdevice instead (still better to print relative info).
additional information:
before commit 01c681d4c70d64cb72142a2823f27c4146a02e63,
if call xen_vbd_translate failed, the preq.dev will be not initialized.
so use blkif->vbd.pdevice instead (still better to print relative info).
additional information:
before commit 01c681d4c70d64cb72142a2823f27c4146a02e63, the value printed
here was bogus, as it was the guest provided
if call xen_vbd_translate failed, the preq.dev will be not initialized.
so use blkif-vbd.pdevice instead (still better to print relative info).
additional information:
before commit 01c681d4c70d64cb72142a2823f27c4146a02e63, the value printed
here was bogus, as it was the guest provided
20 matches
Mail list logo
