>>Yes (if possible).
Ok, I'll try to port save-async.c in a first time , then I'll look for new
snasphot code.
(move-bdrv-snapshot-find.patch can be dropped, as bdrv_snapshot_find have move
to block/snapshot.c)
- Mail original -
De: "Dietmar Maurer"
À: "Alexandre DERUMIER"
Cc:
> >>move-bdrv-snapshot-find.patch
> >>internal-snapshot-async.patch
>
> I'll try to have a look at it.
> do we want to use new transaction feature ?
> http://wiki.qemu.org/Features/SnapshotsMultipleDevices
Yes (if possible).
___
pve-devel mailing list
p
>>move-bdrv-snapshot-find.patch
>>internal-snapshot-async.patch
I'll try to have a look at it.
do we want to use new transaction feature ?
http://wiki.qemu.org/Features/SnapshotsMultipleDevices
- Mail original -
De: "Dietmar Maurer"
À: "Alexandre DERUMIER"
Cc: "pve-devel"
Envoyé
Ok, I just started the upgrade, and pushed a few patches so that we can
compile pve-qemu-kvm with qemu-1.7rc2
I disabled the backup and snapshot patches for now.
Next I will update the backup patches for qemu 1.7
Would be great if someone can update the following patches for 1.7 ;-)
move-bdrv-
>>But I want to avoid another ostype 'win81', so can we add that flag
>>unconditionally
>>for cpu type kvm64?
Yes, I think we can do it like that. It shouldn't break live migration.
(I think only remove a cpuflag should break live migration, but adding a new
flag should be ok)
- Mail origi
> We've found another bug in proxmox. When using the proxmox web interface to
> clone a template or existing box, the pool specified is completely ignored.
> The
> web api works correctly.
Maybe you are using an old version? For me it looks this was fixed a long time
ago:
https://git.proxmox.c
> >>So it is maybe simpler to just add that flag to the kvm64 CPU definition
> >>(patch
> for pve-qemu-kvm)?
>
> isn't it more simpler to add it to cmd line ? ,+lahf_lm ?
Maybe you are right ;-)
But I want to avoid another ostype 'win81', so can we add that flag
unconditionally
for cpu type k
>>So it is maybe simpler to just add that flag to the kvm64 CPU definition
>>(patch for pve-qemu-kvm)?
isn't it more simpler to add it to cmd line ? ,+lahf_lm ?
- Mail original -
De: "Dietmar Maurer"
À: "Alexandre DERUMIER"
Cc: pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Nove
> so theses 3flags make sense
>
> but lahf_lm is supported by amd and intel since a long time.
> Don't known why they remove it
So it is maybe simpler to just add that flag to the kvm64 CPU definition (patch
for pve-qemu-kvm)?
___
pve-devel mailing lis
