Which qemu change corresponds to RedHat bug 1655408

2020-10-08 Thread Jakob Bohm
Red Hat bugzilla bug 1655408 against qemu is listed by Red Hat as fixed in April 2019, but I cannot find the corresponding change on qemu.org (the Changelog in the wiki is not a traditional changelog and doesn't cover bugfix releases such as 5.0.1, the git commit log is too detailed to search, the

Re: Which qemu change corresponds to RedHat bug 1655408

2020-10-08 Thread Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
Hi Jakob, On 10/8/20 6:32 PM, Jakob Bohm wrote: > Red Hat bugzilla bug 1655408 against qemu is listed by Red Hat as fixed in > April 2019, but I cannot find the corresponding change on qemu.org (the > Changelog in the wiki is not a traditional changelog and doesn't cover > bugfix releases such as

Re: Which qemu change corresponds to RedHat bug 1655408

2020-10-08 Thread Jakob Bohm
(Top posting because previous reply did so): If the bug was closed as "can't reproduce", why was a very similar bug listed as fixed in RHSA-2019:2553-01 ? On 2020-10-08 18:41, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: Hi Jakob, On 10/8/20 6:32 PM, Jakob Bohm wrote: Red Hat bugzilla bug 1655408 against

Re: Which qemu change corresponds to RedHat bug 1655408

2020-10-08 Thread Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
On 10/8/20 6:49 PM, Jakob Bohm wrote: > (Top posting because previous reply did so): Which previous reply? Mine? I wrote "hi Jakob" then replied in-line, maybe you missed it? See below... > > If the bug was closed as "can't reproduce", why was a very similar bug > listed as fixed in RHSA-2019:25

Re: Which qemu change corresponds to RedHat bug 1655408

2020-10-09 Thread Max Reitz
On 08.10.20 18:49, Jakob Bohm wrote: > (Top posting because previous reply did so): > > If the bug was closed as "can't reproduce", why was a very similar bug > listed as fixed in RHSA-2019:2553-01 ? Hi, Which very similar bug do you mean? I can only guess that perhaps you mean 1603104 or 15514

Re: Which qemu change corresponds to RedHat bug 1655408

2020-10-09 Thread Jakob Bohm
On 2020-10-09 10:48, Max Reitz wrote: On 08.10.20 18:49, Jakob Bohm wrote: (Top posting because previous reply did so): If the bug was closed as "can't reproduce", why was a very similar bug listed as fixed in RHSA-2019:2553-01 ? Hi, Which very similar bug do you mean? I can only guess that

Re: Which qemu change corresponds to RedHat bug 1655408

2020-10-09 Thread Max Reitz
On 09.10.20 14:55, Jakob Bohm wrote: > On 2020-10-09 10:48, Max Reitz wrote: [...] > The error I got was specifically "Failed to lock byte 100" and VM not > starting.  The ISO file was on a R/W NFS3 share, but was itself R/O for > the user that root was mapped to by linux-nfs-server via /etc/expo

Re: Which qemu change corresponds to RedHat bug 1655408

2020-10-09 Thread Jakob Bohm
On 2020-10-09 15:56, Max Reitz wrote: On 09.10.20 14:55, Jakob Bohm wrote: On 2020-10-09 10:48, Max Reitz wrote: [...] The error I got was specifically "Failed to lock byte 100" and VM not starting.  The ISO file was on a R/W NFS3 share, but was itself R/O for the user that root was mapped t

Re: Which qemu change corresponds to RedHat bug 1655408

2020-10-12 Thread Max Reitz
On 10.10.20 00:54, Jakob Bohm wrote: [...] > Theoretically, locking on a raw file needs to be protocol-compatible > with loop-mounting the same raw file, so if the loop driver doesn't > probe those magic byte offsets to prevent out-of-order block writes, > then there is little point for the qemu

Re: Which qemu change corresponds to RedHat bug 1655408

2020-10-12 Thread Max Reitz
On 09.10.20 14:55, Jakob Bohm wrote: > On 2020-10-09 10:48, Max Reitz wrote: >> On 08.10.20 18:49, Jakob Bohm wrote: >>> (Top posting because previous reply did so): >>> >>> If the bug was closed as "can't reproduce", why was a very similar bug >>> listed as fixed in RHSA-2019:2553-01 ? >> >> Hi, >

Re: Which qemu change corresponds to RedHat bug 1655408

2020-10-12 Thread Jakob Bohm
On 2020-10-12 13:47, Max Reitz wrote: On 09.10.20 14:55, Jakob Bohm wrote: On 2020-10-09 10:48, Max Reitz wrote: On 08.10.20 18:49, Jakob Bohm wrote: (Top posting because previous reply did so): If the bug was closed as "can't reproduce", why was a very similar bug listed as fixed in RHSA-201