Re: Which qemu change corresponds to RedHat bug 1655408

2020-10-09 Thread Jakob Bohm
On 2020-10-09 15:56, Max Reitz wrote: On 09.10.20 14:55, Jakob Bohm wrote: On 2020-10-09 10:48, Max Reitz wrote: [...] The error I got was specifically "Failed to lock byte 100" and VM not starting.  The ISO file was on a R/W NFS3 share, but was itself R/O for the user that root was mapped t

Re: Which qemu change corresponds to RedHat bug 1655408

2020-10-09 Thread Max Reitz
On 09.10.20 14:55, Jakob Bohm wrote: > On 2020-10-09 10:48, Max Reitz wrote: [...] > The error I got was specifically "Failed to lock byte 100" and VM not > starting.  The ISO file was on a R/W NFS3 share, but was itself R/O for > the user that root was mapped to by linux-nfs-server via /etc/expo

Re: Which qemu change corresponds to RedHat bug 1655408

2020-10-09 Thread Jakob Bohm
On 2020-10-09 10:48, Max Reitz wrote: On 08.10.20 18:49, Jakob Bohm wrote: (Top posting because previous reply did so): If the bug was closed as "can't reproduce", why was a very similar bug listed as fixed in RHSA-2019:2553-01 ? Hi, Which very similar bug do you mean? I can only guess that

Re: Which qemu change corresponds to RedHat bug 1655408

2020-10-09 Thread Max Reitz
On 08.10.20 18:49, Jakob Bohm wrote: > (Top posting because previous reply did so): > > If the bug was closed as "can't reproduce", why was a very similar bug > listed as fixed in RHSA-2019:2553-01 ? Hi, Which very similar bug do you mean? I can only guess that perhaps you mean 1603104 or 15514