On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 07:41:55PM +0800, Ming Xie wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 6:14 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> Ming,
>
> For some reason the build seems "stuck" at the moment, but
> if it finishes could you see if this fixes the RHEL 9 case?
>
>
On 28.09.23 17:33, Eric Blake wrote:
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 12:09:51PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
On 27.09.23 18:59, Eric Blake wrote:
We could also try to be a bit more complicated by peeking at the next
few bytes: if they look like a magic number of the next request,
assume
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 12:09:51PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> On 27.09.23 18:59, Eric Blake wrote:
> > We could also try to be a bit more complicated by peeking at the next
> > few bytes: if they look like a magic number of the next request,
> > assume the client set the bit
(resend, as it bounced on tyan-...@redhat.com)
Hi Ming,
On 27.09.23 14:46, Ming Xie wrote:
Hi Richard,
Sorry, I missed the email, I found out that the ova OS used by the customer is
win11 uefi, so I tried to reproduce the error today using win11-uefi guest
Steps:
1. Convert win10-efi with
Hi Ming,
On 27.09.23 14:46, Ming Xie wrote:
Hi Richard,
Sorry, I missed the email, I found out that the ova OS used by the customer is
win11 uefi, so I tried to reproduce the error today using win11-uefi guest
Steps:
1. Convert win10-efi with UTC-8 timezone, win11-non-efi with UTC-8
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 07:41:55PM +0800, Ming Xie wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 6:14 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> Ming,
>
> For some reason the build seems "stuck" at the moment, but
> if it finishes could you see if this fixes the RHEL 9 case?
>
>
Hi Richard,
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 6:14 PM Richard W.M. Jones
wrote:
> Ming,
>
> For some reason the build seems "stuck" at the moment, but
> if it finishes could you see if this fixes the RHEL 9 case?
>
> https://kojihub.stream.centos.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2879547
>
Sure, no problem, but
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 04:03:33PM +0800, Ming Xie wrote:
> Yes, I reproduced the problem using rhel9 virt-v2v, because I saw that the
> customer was also using rhel9 virt-v2v (version: 2.2), I saw that you wanted
> to
> solve the problem by fixing the date of the schtask command, but I see
Ming,
For some reason the build seems "stuck" at the moment, but
if it finishes could you see if this fixes the RHEL 9 case?
https://kojihub.stream.centos.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2879547
Thanks,
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my
On 27.09.23 18:59, Eric Blake wrote:
We could also try to be a bit more complicated by peeking at the next
few bytes: if they look like a magic number of the next request,
assume the client set the bit accidentally but didn't send a payload
after all; for anything else, assume the client did
On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 04:22:48PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 04:03:19PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 09:47:55PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 12:33:36PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> > > > There are a number of ways in
11 matches
Mail list logo
