Zhi Yong Wu writes:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:18 AM, Chris Webb wrote:
> > I would indeed quite like to backport this to qemu 1.0! Am I right in
> > thinking the sanest way to do this is to apply 922453bca6a9 to bring all the
> > relevant qemu_aio_flush() calls through the same place before I
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:18 AM, Chris Webb wrote:
> zwu.ker...@gmail.com writes:
>
>> The patch is based on the latest QEMU upstream. If you will backport the
>> patchset to QEMU 1.0, pls note the difference.
>
> I would indeed quite like to backport this to qemu 1.0! Am I right in
> thinking the
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 19.02.2012 16:16, schrieb zwu.ker...@gmail.com:
>> From: Zhi Yong Wu
>>
>> The patch is based on the latest QEMU upstream. If you will backport the
>> patchset to QEMU 1.0, pls note the difference.
>
> "Fix" is never a good patch descr
zwu.ker...@gmail.com writes:
> The patch is based on the latest QEMU upstream. If you will backport the
> patchset to QEMU 1.0, pls note the difference.
I would indeed quite like to backport this to qemu 1.0! Am I right in
thinking the sanest way to do this is to apply 922453bca6a9 to bring all t
Am 19.02.2012 16:16, schrieb zwu.ker...@gmail.com:
> From: Zhi Yong Wu
>
> The patch is based on the latest QEMU upstream. If you will backport the
> patchset to QEMU 1.0, pls note the difference.
"Fix" is never a good patch description. ;) In place of the above
sentence, which does not tell us
From: Zhi Yong Wu
The patch is based on the latest QEMU upstream. If you will backport the
patchset to QEMU 1.0, pls note the difference.
Signed-off-by: Zhi Yong Wu
---
block.c |6 ++
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block.c b/block.c
index ae297bb..07cd1
