On 2 April 2014 16:38, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 05:33:02PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
The subsection already exists in one well-known enterprise Linux
distribution, but for some strange reason the fields were swapped
when forward-porting the patch to
The subsection already exists in one well-known enterprise Linux
distribution, but for some strange reason the fields were swapped
when forward-porting the patch to upstream.
Limit headaches for said enterprise Linux distributor when the
time will come to rebase their version of QEMU.
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 05:33:02PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
The subsection already exists in one well-known enterprise Linux
distribution, but for some strange reason the fields were swapped
when forward-porting the patch to upstream.
Limit headaches for said enterprise Linux distributor
On 2 April 2014 16:33, Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote:
The subsection already exists in one well-known enterprise Linux
distribution, but for some strange reason the fields were swapped
when forward-porting the patch to upstream.
Limit headaches for said enterprise Linux distributor
Il 02/04/2014 17:42, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
On 2 April 2014 16:33, Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote:
The subsection already exists in one well-known enterprise Linux
distribution, but for some strange reason the fields were swapped
when forward-porting the patch to upstream.
Limit
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 04:42:08PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 2 April 2014 16:33, Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote:
The subsection already exists in one well-known enterprise Linux
distribution, but for some strange reason the fields were swapped
when forward-porting the patch to
Am 02.04.2014 17:56, schrieb Michael S. Tsirkin:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 04:42:08PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 2 April 2014 16:33, Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote:
The subsection already exists in one well-known enterprise Linux
distribution, but for some strange reason the fields
Il 02/04/2014 18:10, Andreas Färber ha scritto:
Is the version_id important for that enterprise distribution?
We usually didn't make this depend on the release but on individual
changes, so PMM has a point. If someone did a savevm on master and after
this patch tries to loadvm it, maybe nothing
