Am 30.06.2010 13:52, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
> Kevin Wolf writes:
>
>> Am 28.06.2010 12:16, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
>>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:24:49AM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>>
Am 27.06.2010 11:36, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 04:44:11PM +0200, Markus
Kevin Wolf writes:
> Am 28.06.2010 12:16, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:24:49AM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>
>>> Am 27.06.2010 11:36, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 04:44:11PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
[...]
> -device usb-storage,drive=
Christoph Hellwig writes:
>Markus Armbruster writes:
>
>> Christoph Hellwig writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 06:53:28PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
For instance, -device scsi-disk,drive=foo -device scsi-disk,drive=foo
happily creates two SCSI disks connected to the same bloc
Kevin Wolf writes:
> Am 25.06.2010 18:53, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
>> For instance, -device scsi-disk,drive=foo -device scsi-disk,drive=foo
>> happily creates two SCSI disks connected to the same block device.
>> It's all downhill from there.
>>
>> Device usb-storage deliberately attaches twic
Am 25.06.2010 18:53, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
> For instance, -device scsi-disk,drive=foo -device scsi-disk,drive=foo
> happily creates two SCSI disks connected to the same block device.
> It's all downhill from there.
>
> Device usb-storage deliberately attaches twice to the same blockdev,
> wh
Hi,
Note that currently the usb storage emulation is extremly broken anyway,
just writing to it produces I/O errors after a short while. This means
it can't be used very much at all.
When I tried last time, it did produce lots of kernel error messages in
the guest, but in the end the data w
Am 28.06.2010 12:16, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:24:49AM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> How would breaking compatibility help us? For the user a USB MSD is only
>> one device, so requiring two -device parameters sounds wrong.
>
> But it is separate devices. At least the s
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:24:49AM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> How would breaking compatibility help us? For the user a USB MSD is only
> one device, so requiring two -device parameters sounds wrong.
But it is separate devices. At least the standards compliant usb
storage devices just are a bride
Am 27.06.2010 11:36, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 04:44:11PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Valid question. I'd answer yes. It's an easy error to make, and likely
>> to end in massive file system corruption in the guest.
>
> I suspect a modern distro in the guest will
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 04:44:11PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Valid question. I'd answer yes. It's an easy error to make, and likely
> to end in massive file system corruption in the guest.
I suspect a modern distro in the guest will detect it as a multi-path setup.
> > Can anyone explai
Christoph Hellwig writes:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 06:53:28PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> For instance, -device scsi-disk,drive=foo -device scsi-disk,drive=foo
>> happily creates two SCSI disks connected to the same block device.
>> It's all downhill from there.
>
> And from some quick te
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 06:53:28PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> For instance, -device scsi-disk,drive=foo -device scsi-disk,drive=foo
> happily creates two SCSI disks connected to the same block device.
> It's all downhill from there.
And from some quick testing a while ago the thing seems to
12 matches
Mail list logo
