On 08/23/2011 11:50 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 23.08.2011 17:26, schrieb Daniel P. Berrange:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:13:34AM -0400, Corey Bryant wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 08/22/2011 02:39 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Corey Bryant
wrote:
>
>
>On
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 04:51:31PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 05:50:03PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 23.08.2011 17:26, schrieb Daniel P. Berrange:
> > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:13:34AM -0400, Corey Bryant wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 08/22/2011 02:39 PM, Blu
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 05:50:03PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 23.08.2011 17:26, schrieb Daniel P. Berrange:
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:13:34AM -0400, Corey Bryant wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 08/22/2011 02:39 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Corey Bryant
> >>> wrote
Am 23.08.2011 17:26, schrieb Daniel P. Berrange:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:13:34AM -0400, Corey Bryant wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 08/22/2011 02:39 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Corey Bryant
>>> wrote:
>
>
> On 08/22/2011 01:25 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:13:34AM -0400, Corey Bryant wrote:
>
>
> On 08/22/2011 02:39 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
> >On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Corey Bryant
> >wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 08/22/2011 01:25 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >
> > On 08/22/2011 11:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
On 08/22/2011 02:39 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Corey Bryant wrote:
>
>
> On 08/22/2011 01:25 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>> On 08/22/2011 11:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:29:12AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 08/23/2011 09:26 AM, Corey Bryant wrote:
On 08/22/2011 03:25 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 08/22/2011 01:22 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:25:25PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 08/22/2011 11:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:29:12AM -0
On 08/22/2011 03:25 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 08/22/2011 01:22 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:25:25PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 08/22/2011 11:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:29:12AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I don't think it
On 08/22/2011 01:22 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:25:25PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 08/22/2011 11:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:29:12AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I don't think it makes sense to have qemu-fe do dynamic labellin
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:25:25PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> On 08/22/2011 11:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> >On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:29:12AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> >>I don't think it makes sense to have qemu-fe
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Corey Bryant wrote:
>
>
> On 08/22/2011 01:25 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>> On 08/22/2011 11:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:29:12AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I don't think it makes sense to have qemu-fe do dynam
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:25:25PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 08/22/2011 11:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:29:12AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>I don't think it makes sense to have qemu-fe do dynamic labelling.
> >>You certainly could avoid the fd passin
On 08/22/2011 01:25 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 08/22/2011 11:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:29:12AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I don't think it makes sense to have qemu-fe do dynamic labelling.
You certainly could avoid the fd passing by having qemu-fe do th
On 08/22/2011 11:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:29:12AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I don't think it makes sense to have qemu-fe do dynamic labelling.
You certainly could avoid the fd passing by having qemu-fe do the
open though and just let qemu-fe run without the
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:29:12AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 08/22/2011 11:24 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 05:38:20PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>I'm still totally against this. FD passing is a nice feature for
> >>sandboxing,
> >>but the passing shoul
On 08/22/2011 11:24 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 05:38:20PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I'm still totally against this. FD passing is a nice feature for sandboxing,
but the passing should be between closely cooperating programs. We'll
need a tool shipped from the q
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 05:38:20PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I'm still totally against this. FD passing is a nice feature for sandboxing,
> but the passing should be between closely cooperating programs. We'll
> need a tool shipped from the qemu source tree to open and set up the
> FDs, a
17 matches
Mail list logo