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
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,
>
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
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
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
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
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
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
(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
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
