Am 09.08.2011 06:32, schrieb andrzej zaborowski:
On 4 August 2011 10:02, Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com wrote:
Am 03.08.2011 22:20, schrieb andrzej zaborowski:
On 3 August 2011 20:24, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com writes:
On 3 August 2011 18:38,
Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com writes:
Am 09.08.2011 13:56, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
bdrv_is_locked() is about the frontend's media lock. To make this more
obvious, my PATCH 29/55 replaces it by bdrv_dev_is_medium_locked(). It
does *not* query the backend's lock (which may not even exist!)
Am 09.08.2011 14:36, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com writes:
Am 09.08.2011 13:56, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
bdrv_is_locked() is about the frontend's media lock. To make this more
obvious, my PATCH 29/55 replaces it by bdrv_dev_is_medium_locked(). It
does *not*
Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com writes:
Am 09.08.2011 06:32, schrieb andrzej zaborowski:
On 4 August 2011 10:02, Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com wrote:
Am 03.08.2011 22:20, schrieb andrzej zaborowski:
On 3 August 2011 20:24, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
andrzej zaborowski
Am 09.08.2011 13:56, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
bdrv_is_locked() is about the frontend's media lock. To make this more
obvious, my PATCH 29/55 replaces it by bdrv_dev_is_medium_locked(). It
does *not* query the backend's lock (which may not even exist!) set by
bdrv_set_locked().
This sounds
On 4 August 2011 10:02, Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com wrote:
Am 03.08.2011 22:20, schrieb andrzej zaborowski:
On 3 August 2011 20:24, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com writes:
On 3 August 2011 18:38, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
Am 03.08.2011 22:20, schrieb andrzej zaborowski:
On 3 August 2011 20:24, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com writes:
On 3 August 2011 18:38, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com writes:
andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com writes:
On 3 August 2011 20:24, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com writes:
On 3 August 2011 18:38, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com writes:
Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org writes:
On 1 August 2011 13:33, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com writes:
On 20 July 2011 18:24, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
We try the drive defined with -drive if=ide,index=0 (or equivalent
On 3 August 2011 10:12, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org writes:
On 1 August 2011 13:33, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com writes:
On 20 July 2011 18:24, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com writes:
On 3 August 2011 10:12, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org writes:
On 1 August 2011 13:33, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com writes:
On 20 July 2011
On 3 August 2011 15:28, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com writes:
On 3 August 2011 10:12, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org writes:
On 1 August 2011 13:33, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com writes:
On 3 August 2011 15:28, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com writes:
On 3 August 2011 10:12, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org writes:
On 1 August 2011
On 3 August 2011 18:38, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com writes:
2. if the
underlaying storage can disappear for any other reason if that's
possible to check.
bdrv_is_removable() *isn't* such
andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com writes:
On 3 August 2011 18:38, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com writes:
2. if the
underlaying storage can disappear for any other reason if that's
On 3 August 2011 20:24, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com writes:
On 3 August 2011 18:38, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com writes:
2. if the
andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com writes:
On 20 July 2011 18:24, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
We try the drive defined with -drive if=ide,index=0 (or equivalent
sugar). We use it only if (dinfo bdrv_is_inserted(dinfo-bdrv)
!bdrv_is_removable(dinfo-bdrv)). This is a
On 1 August 2011 13:33, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com writes:
On 20 July 2011 18:24, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
We try the drive defined with -drive if=ide,index=0 (or equivalent
sugar). We use it only if (dinfo
On 20 July 2011 18:24, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
We try the drive defined with -drive if=ide,index=0 (or equivalent
sugar). We use it only if (dinfo bdrv_is_inserted(dinfo-bdrv)
!bdrv_is_removable(dinfo-bdrv)). This is a convoluted way to test
for drive media can't be
We try the drive defined with -drive if=ide,index=0 (or equivalent
sugar). We use it only if (dinfo bdrv_is_inserted(dinfo-bdrv)
!bdrv_is_removable(dinfo-bdrv)). This is a convoluted way to test
for drive media can't be removed.
The only way to create such a drive with -drive if=ide is
20 matches
Mail list logo
