* Juan Quintela (quint...@redhat.com) wrote:
> "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" wrote:
> > * Juan Quintela (quint...@redhat.com) wrote:
> >> "Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)" wrote:
> >> > From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert"
> >> >
> >> > My e4d633207 patch has an over zealous sanity check that checked
> >> > t
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" wrote:
> * Juan Quintela (quint...@redhat.com) wrote:
>> "Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)" wrote:
>> > From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert"
>> >
>> > My e4d633207 patch has an over zealous sanity check that checked
>> > the lengths of the RAM Blocks on source/destination were the
* Juan Quintela (quint...@redhat.com) wrote:
> "Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)" wrote:
> > From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert"
> >
> > My e4d633207 patch has an over zealous sanity check that checked
> > the lengths of the RAM Blocks on source/destination were the same. This
> > isn't true because of t
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)" wrote:
> From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert"
>
> My e4d633207 patch has an over zealous sanity check that checked
> the lengths of the RAM Blocks on source/destination were the same. This
> isn't true because of the 'used_length' trick for RAM blocks like the
> ACPI tab
From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert"
My e4d633207 patch has an over zealous sanity check that checked
the lengths of the RAM Blocks on source/destination were the same. This
isn't true because of the 'used_length' trick for RAM blocks like the
ACPI table that vary in size.
Prior to that patch RDMA wo
From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert"
My e4d633207 patch has an over zealous sanity check that checked
the lengths of the RAM Blocks on source/destination were the same. This
isn't true because of the 'used_length' trick for RAM blocks like the
ACPI table that vary in size.
Prior to that patch RDMA wo
