On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 10:45, Peter Maydell wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 at 22:47, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 at 17:09, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
> > wrote:
> > > Note that 30 is known to crash sometimes. Look at
> > >
> > > "[PATCH RFC 0/5] Fix accidental crash in
On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 at 22:47, Peter Maydell wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 at 17:09, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
> wrote:
> > Note that 30 is known to crash sometimes. Look at
> >
> > "[PATCH RFC 0/5] Fix accidental crash in iotest 30"
> >
> >
On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 at 17:09, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
wrote:
> Note that 30 is known to crash sometimes. Look at
>
> "[PATCH RFC 0/5] Fix accidental crash in iotest 30"
>
> https://patchew.org/QEMU/20201120161622.1537-1-vsement...@virtuozzo.com/
It certainly seems to be the least reliable
02.02.2021 19:29, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
02.02.2021 19:23, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 02.02.2021 um 17:13 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
On 2/1/21 8:56 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
I had planned to send a pull request for this series today, but ran into
a snag. Without this series applied,
02.02.2021 19:23, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 02.02.2021 um 17:13 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
On 2/1/21 8:56 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
I had planned to send a pull request for this series today, but ran into
a snag. Without this series applied, './check -qcow2' fails 030, 185,
and 297.
297 appears to
Am 02.02.2021 um 17:13 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
> On 2/1/21 8:56 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>
> > I had planned to send a pull request for this series today, but ran into
> > a snag. Without this series applied, './check -qcow2' fails 030, 185,
> > and 297.
>
> 297 appears to be fixed once
On 2/1/21 8:56 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> I had planned to send a pull request for this series today, but ran into
> a snag. Without this series applied, './check -qcow2' fails 030, 185,
> and 297.
297 appears to be fixed once Kevin's pull request lands (well, that may
be needing a v2). 185
On 2/1/21 8:56 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> I had planned to send a pull request for this series today, but ran into
> a snag. Without this series applied, './check -qcow2' fails 030, 185,
> and 297. With it applied, I now also get a failure in 206. I'm trying
> to bisect which patch caused the
02.02.2021 05:56, Eric Blake wrote:
On 12/11/20 12:39 PM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Hi all!
We want 64bit write-zeroes, and for this, convert all io functions to
64bit.
We chose signed type, to be consistent with off_t (which is signed) and
with possibility for signed return type
On 12/11/20 12:39 PM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> We want 64bit write-zeroes, and for this, convert all io functions to
> 64bit.
>
> We chose signed type, to be consistent with off_t (which is signed) and
> with possibility for signed return type (where negative value means
ping
11.12.2020 21:39, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Hi all!
We want 64bit write-zeroes, and for this, convert all io functions to
64bit.
We chose signed type, to be consistent with off_t (which is signed) and
with possibility for signed return type (where negative value means
error).
11.12.2020 21:39, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Hi all!
We want 64bit write-zeroes, and for this, convert all io functions to
64bit.
We chose signed type, to be consistent with off_t (which is signed) and
with possibility for signed return type (where negative value means
error).
Please
Hi all!
We want 64bit write-zeroes, and for this, convert all io functions to
64bit.
We chose signed type, to be consistent with off_t (which is signed) and
with possibility for signed return type (where negative value means
error).
Please refer to initial cover-letter
13 matches
Mail list logo
