Luiz Capitulino lcapitul...@redhat.com writes:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 19:12:19 -0300
Eduardo Habkost ehabk...@redhat.com wrote:
I have no clue why the code had the is_inserted() check, as it doesn't matter
if there is a disk present at the host drive, when the user wants the virtual
device to
Am 02.06.2010 00:12, schrieb Eduardo Habkost:
Resubmitting a patch that was submitted in December[1]. It was on the staging
tree but somehow it got dropped. I have rebased it to current master branch on
git.
[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/59813
This
Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com writes:
Am 02.06.2010 00:12, schrieb Eduardo Habkost:
Resubmitting a patch that was submitted in December[1]. It was on the staging
tree but somehow it got dropped. I have rebased it to current master branch
on
git.
[1]
On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 02:19:28PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com writes:
Am 02.06.2010 00:12, schrieb Eduardo Habkost:
The first eject command didn't work because the is_inserted() check
failed.
But does it really make a difference? The guest should not see
Am 07.06.2010 14:43, schrieb Eduardo Habkost:
On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 02:19:28PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com writes:
Am 02.06.2010 00:12, schrieb Eduardo Habkost:
The first eject command didn't work because the is_inserted() check
failed.
But does it really
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 19:12:19 -0300
Eduardo Habkost ehabk...@redhat.com wrote:
I have no clue why the code had the is_inserted() check, as it doesn't matter
if there is a disk present at the host drive, when the user wants the virtual
device to be disconnected from the host device.
Makes
Resubmitting a patch that was submitted in December[1]. It was on the staging
tree but somehow it got dropped. I have rebased it to current master branch on
git.
[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/59813
This changes the monitor eject_device() function to not check
