Re: [PATCH] net: print a more actionable error when slirp is not found

2022-10-13 Thread Jakob Bohm
t Netdev *netdev, const char *name, NetClientState *peer, Error **errp) = { [NET_CLIENT_DRIVER_NIC] = net_init_nic, -#ifdef CONFIG_SLIRP -[NET_CLIENT_DRIVER_USER] = net_init_slirp, +#if (defined(CONFIG_SLIRP) || !defined(CONFIG_SLIRP_DISABLED)) +[NE

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 a

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

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

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 bugzi