Am 01.06.2011 15:44, schrieb Luiz Capitulino:
> On Thu, 26 May 2011 18:12:08 -0300
> Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 May 2011 14:33:19 +0200
>> Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>
>>> These printfs aren't really debug messages, but clearly indicate a bug if
>>> they
>>> ever become effective.
>>
>> The
Kevin Wolf writes:
> Am 06.06.2011 13:57, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
> Not sure what's the best way of fixing this. Maybe just ignoring
> -snapshot for read-only block devices?
Why not, the combination is pointless.
>>>
>>> It could start making a difference in some obscure comb
Am 06.06.2011 13:57, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
Not sure what's the best way of fixing this. Maybe just ignoring
-snapshot for read-only block devices?
>>>
>>> Why not, the combination is pointless.
>>
>> It could start making a difference in some obscure combinations. Imagine
>> a read-o
Kevin Wolf writes:
> Am 01.06.2011 17:32, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
>> Kevin Wolf writes:
>>
>>> Am 01.06.2011 15:44, schrieb Luiz Capitulino:
On Thu, 26 May 2011 18:12:08 -0300
Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2011 14:33:19 +0200
> Kevin Wolf wrote:
>
>
Am 01.06.2011 17:32, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
> Kevin Wolf writes:
>
>> Am 01.06.2011 15:44, schrieb Luiz Capitulino:
>>> On Thu, 26 May 2011 18:12:08 -0300
>>> Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>>>
On Thu, 19 May 2011 14:33:19 +0200
Kevin Wolf wrote:
> These printfs aren't really deb
On Thu, 26 May 2011 18:12:08 -0300
Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2011 14:33:19 +0200
> Kevin Wolf wrote:
>
> > These printfs aren't really debug messages, but clearly indicate a bug if
> > they
> > ever become effective.
>
> Then we have a bug somewhere, starting a VM with:
>
> #
Kevin Wolf writes:
> Am 01.06.2011 15:44, schrieb Luiz Capitulino:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2011 18:12:08 -0300
>> Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 May 2011 14:33:19 +0200
>>> Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>>
These printfs aren't really debug messages, but clearly indicate a bug if
they
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 16:02:56 +0200
Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 01.06.2011 15:44, schrieb Luiz Capitulino:
> > On Thu, 26 May 2011 18:12:08 -0300
> > Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 19 May 2011 14:33:19 +0200
> >> Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >>
> >>> These printfs aren't really debug messages, but c
Am 01.06.2011 15:44, schrieb Luiz Capitulino:
> On Thu, 26 May 2011 18:12:08 -0300
> Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 May 2011 14:33:19 +0200
>> Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>
>>> These printfs aren't really debug messages, but clearly indicate a bug if
>>> they
>>> ever become effective.
>>
>> The
On Fri, 27 May 2011 08:39:05 +0200
Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 26.05.2011 23:12, schrieb Luiz Capitulino:
> > On Thu, 19 May 2011 14:33:19 +0200
> > Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >
> >> These printfs aren't really debug messages, but clearly indicate a bug if
> >> they
> >> ever become effective.
> >
> > Th
Am 26.05.2011 23:12, schrieb Luiz Capitulino:
> On Thu, 19 May 2011 14:33:19 +0200
> Kevin Wolf wrote:
>
>> These printfs aren't really debug messages, but clearly indicate a bug if
>> they
>> ever become effective.
>
> Then we have a bug somewhere, starting a VM with:
>
> # qemu -hda disks/t
On Thu, 19 May 2011 14:33:19 +0200
Kevin Wolf wrote:
> These printfs aren't really debug messages, but clearly indicate a bug if they
> ever become effective.
Then we have a bug somewhere, starting a VM with:
# qemu -hda disks/test.img -enable-kvm -m 1G -cdrom /dev/sr0
Where the host's CDROM
These printfs aren't really debug messages, but clearly indicate a bug if they
ever become effective. Noone uses DEBUG_IDE, let's re-enable the check
unconditionally and make it an assertion instead of printfs in the device
emulation.
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf
Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi
---
h
13 matches
Mail list logo