On 09/08/20 19:26, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 10:17:08AM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 09/07/20 16:38, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 04:20:02PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 9/7/20 3:57 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07,
On 09/08/20 14:28, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 9/8/20 1:45 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek
>
> Thank you, pushed.
Thank *you* for the patch. :)
Laszlo
On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 10:17:08AM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 09/07/20 16:38, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 04:20:02PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> >> On 9/7/20 3:57 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:48:16PM +0200, Michal Privoznik
On 9/8/20 1:45 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek
Thank you, pushed.
Michal
On 09/08/20 12:05, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 9/8/20 11:02 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 09/07/20 15:48, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>>> Even though this was brought up in upstream discussion [1] it
>>> missed my patches: users should prefer over fwcfg.
>>> The reason is that fwcfg is considered
On 09/08/20 11:12, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 11:02:10AM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 09/07/20 15:48, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>>> Even though this was brought up in upstream discussion [1] it
>>> missed my patches: users should prefer over fwcfg.
>>> The reason is
On 09/08/20 11:05, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 10:22:34AM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 09/08/20 08:37, Martin Kletzander wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:38:23PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 04:20:02PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 9/8/20 11:02 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 09/07/20 15:48, Michal Privoznik wrote:
Even though this was brought up in upstream discussion [1] it
missed my patches: users should prefer over fwcfg.
The reason is that fwcfg is considered somewhat internal to QEMU
and it has limited number of
On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 11:02:10AM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 09/07/20 15:48, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> > Even though this was brought up in upstream discussion [1] it
> > missed my patches: users should prefer over fwcfg.
> > The reason is that fwcfg is considered somewhat internal to QEMU
On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 10:22:34AM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 09/08/20 08:37, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:38:23PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 04:20:02PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> >>> On 9/7/20 3:57 PM, Martin Kletzander
On 09/07/20 15:48, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> Even though this was brought up in upstream discussion [1] it
> missed my patches: users should prefer over fwcfg.
> The reason is that fwcfg is considered somewhat internal to QEMU
> and it has limited number of slots and neither of these applies
> to
On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 10:22:34AM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 09/08/20 08:37, Martin Kletzander wrote:
On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:38:23PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 04:20:02PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 9/7/20 3:57 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Mon,
On 09/08/20 08:37, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:38:23PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 04:20:02PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>>> On 9/7/20 3:57 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:48:16PM +0200, Michal Privoznik
On 09/07/20 16:38, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 04:20:02PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>> On 9/7/20 3:57 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:48:16PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
Even though this was brought up in upstream discussion [1] it
On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 08:03:46AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 08:37:03AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:38:23PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 04:20:02PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> > On 9/7/20 3:57 PM,
On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 08:37:03AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:38:23PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 04:20:02PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> > > On 9/7/20 3:57 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at
On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:38:23PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 04:20:02PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 9/7/20 3:57 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:48:16PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> > Even though this was brought up in upstream
On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 04:20:02PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 9/7/20 3:57 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:48:16PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> > > Even though this was brought up in upstream discussion [1] it
> > > missed my patches: users should prefer
On 9/7/20 3:57 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:48:16PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
Even though this was brought up in upstream discussion [1] it
missed my patches: users should prefer over fwcfg.
The reason is that fwcfg is considered somewhat internal to QEMU
and it
On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:48:16PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
Even though this was brought up in upstream discussion [1] it
missed my patches: users should prefer over fwcfg.
The reason is that fwcfg is considered somewhat internal to QEMU
and it has limited number of slots and neither of
20 matches
Mail list logo