Am 11.02.2013 22:14, schrieb Anthony Liguori: > Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> writes: > >> Il 11/02/2013 21:13, Anthony Liguori ha scritto: >>> Applied. Thanks. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Anthony Liguori >> >> I guess this was a mistake, please revert. > > No, it wasn't. The patch was reviewed and tested. What's the problem. > It's proposed for 1.4 so it's now or never.
The problem is that the test failed. Why do we even test things if we commit anyway when the test fails? And why do we have subsystem trees when a committer comes (without even having taken part in the discussion) and applies patches that the subsystem maintainers are very obviously not happy with? If you like, you can have the block subsystem back, just send - or better just apply - a patch against MAINTAINERS. > I saw some discussion about improving the detection for the different > varients of VHD... > > I don't mind reverting it, but just want to understand what the issue > is. It makes qemu use the wrong size for VHD images created by Virtual PC that used to work with qemu. This is a regression that can result in images appearing corrupted in Virtual PC, and we need very good justification to apply such a patch. At the same time the patch enables the use of the correct size for Hyper-V images, but that has never worked with qemu, so if we can't get it to work with both for 1.4, I'd rather compromise on this one and not apply the patch. Please revert. Kevin
