On 09/06/2016 04:24 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 04:01:30PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 02:26:30PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 02/09/2016 20:59, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
While trying to fix the original bug in v1, another bug was fixed
by a
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 04:01:30PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 02:26:30PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 02/09/2016 20:59, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > > While trying to fix the original bug in v1, another bug was fixed
> > > by accident: TCG initialization of dirty_lo
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 02:26:30PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 02/09/2016 20:59, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > While trying to fix the original bug in v1, another bug was fixed
> > by accident: TCG initialization of dirty_log_mask was broken when
> > using memory backends.
> >
> > The fix, on th
On 02/09/2016 20:59, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> While trying to fix the original bug in v1, another bug was fixed
> by accident: TCG initialization of dirty_log_mask was broken when
> using memory backends.
>
> The fix, on the other hand, broke vhost-user-test because it
> relied on TCG, even thou
Eduardo Habkost writes:
> While trying to fix the original bug in v1, another bug was fixed
> by accident: TCG initialization of dirty_log_mask was broken when
> using memory backends.
>
> The fix, on the other hand, broke vhost-user-test because it
> relied on TCG, even though TCG is incompatibl
While trying to fix the original bug in v1, another bug was fixed
by accident: TCG initialization of dirty_log_mask was broken when
using memory backends.
The fix, on the other hand, broke vhost-user-test because it
relied on TCG, even though TCG is incompatible with vhost.
This new version chang
