Am 01.06.2011 17:32, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com writes:
Am 01.06.2011 15:44, schrieb Luiz Capitulino:
On Thu, 26 May 2011 18:12:08 -0300
Luiz Capitulino lcapitul...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2011 14:33:19 +0200
Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com wrote:
These
Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com writes:
Am 01.06.2011 17:32, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com writes:
Am 01.06.2011 15:44, schrieb Luiz Capitulino:
On Thu, 26 May 2011 18:12:08 -0300
Luiz Capitulino lcapitul...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2011 14:33:19 +0200
Kevin
Am 06.06.2011 13:57, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
Not sure what's the best way of fixing this. Maybe just ignoring
-snapshot for read-only block devices?
Why not, the combination is pointless.
It could start making a difference in some obscure combinations. Imagine
a read-only image with a
Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com writes:
Am 06.06.2011 13:57, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
Not sure what's the best way of fixing this. Maybe just ignoring
-snapshot for read-only block devices?
Why not, the combination is pointless.
It could start making a difference in some obscure
Am 01.06.2011 15:44, schrieb Luiz Capitulino:
On Thu, 26 May 2011 18:12:08 -0300
Luiz Capitulino lcapitul...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2011 14:33:19 +0200
Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com wrote:
These printfs aren't really debug messages, but clearly indicate a bug if
they
ever become
Am 01.06.2011 15:44, schrieb Luiz Capitulino:
On Thu, 26 May 2011 18:12:08 -0300
Luiz Capitulino lcapitul...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2011 14:33:19 +0200
Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com wrote:
These printfs aren't really debug messages, but clearly indicate a bug if
they
ever become
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 16:02:56 +0200
Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com wrote:
Am 01.06.2011 15:44, schrieb Luiz Capitulino:
On Thu, 26 May 2011 18:12:08 -0300
Luiz Capitulino lcapitul...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2011 14:33:19 +0200
Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com wrote:
These printfs
Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com writes:
Am 01.06.2011 15:44, schrieb Luiz Capitulino:
On Thu, 26 May 2011 18:12:08 -0300
Luiz Capitulino lcapitul...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2011 14:33:19 +0200
Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com wrote:
These printfs aren't really debug messages, but clearly
On Thu, 26 May 2011 18:12:08 -0300
Luiz Capitulino lcapitul...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2011 14:33:19 +0200
Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com wrote:
These printfs aren't really debug messages, but clearly indicate a bug if
they
ever become effective.
Then we have a bug somewhere,
Am 26.05.2011 23:12, schrieb Luiz Capitulino:
On Thu, 19 May 2011 14:33:19 +0200
Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com wrote:
These printfs aren't really debug messages, but clearly indicate a bug if
they
ever become effective.
Then we have a bug somewhere, starting a VM with:
# qemu -hda
On Fri, 27 May 2011 08:39:05 +0200
Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com wrote:
Am 26.05.2011 23:12, schrieb Luiz Capitulino:
On Thu, 19 May 2011 14:33:19 +0200
Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com wrote:
These printfs aren't really debug messages, but clearly indicate a bug if
they
ever become
On Thu, 19 May 2011 14:33:19 +0200
Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com wrote:
These printfs aren't really debug messages, but clearly indicate a bug if they
ever become effective.
Then we have a bug somewhere, starting a VM with:
# qemu -hda disks/test.img -enable-kvm -m 1G -cdrom /dev/sr0
Where
These printfs aren't really debug messages, but clearly indicate a bug if they
ever become effective. Noone uses DEBUG_IDE, let's re-enable the check
unconditionally and make it an assertion instead of printfs in the device
emulation.
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com
Reviewed-by: Stefan
13 matches
Mail list logo