I've finally gotten around to working on my multipart driver again.
block-composite.c is the basic low level composite image format, which lets you
use a bunch of disk images as a single image.
block-ram.c is a ram block device, with the size of the "image" given in the
number of disk sectors.
b
in vl.c (change introduced 2 days ago by Paul):
In file included from c:/qemu/qemu-30jan07/vl.c:24:
c:/qemu/qemu-30jan07/vl.h:57:1: warning: "ENOMEDIUM" redefined
c:/qemu/qemu-30jan07/vl.h:49:1: warning: this is the location of the
previous definition
c:/qemu/qemu-30jan07/vl.c: In function `win_c
Hi,
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Christian MICHON wrote:
> In file included from c:/qemu/qemu-30jan07/vl.c:24:
> c:/qemu/qemu-30jan07/vl.h:57:1: warning: "ENOMEDIUM" redefined
just guard it with an #ifndef ENOMEDIUM
> c:/qemu/qemu-30jan07/vl.c: In function `win_chr_read_poll':
> c:/qemu/qemu-30jan07/vl
On 1/30/07, Johannes Schindelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
just guard it with an #ifndef ENOMEDIUM
this one was not bothering so much, but it's true it's cleaner with this.
> c:/qemu/qemu-30jan07/vl.c: In function `win_chr_read_poll':
> c:/qemu/qemu-30jan07/vl.c:2021: error: structure has no
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've finally gotten around to working on my multipart driver again.
Why? I'm new to the list. Can you elaborate what sorts of things this
would be used for? I haven't yet gotten around to writing my per device
snapshot enablable/specifiable COW tmpfiles patch. But
On Tuesday 30 January 2007 20:09, Christian MICHON wrote:
> On 1/30/07, Johannes Schindelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > just guard it with an #ifndef ENOMEDIUM
>
> this one was not bothering so much, but it's true it's cleaner with this.
>
> > > c:/qemu/qemu-30jan07/vl.c: In function `win_chr_re
Hi,
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Paul Brook wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 January 2007 20:09, Christian MICHON wrote:
> > On 1/30/07, Johannes Schindelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > just guard it with an #ifndef ENOMEDIUM
> >
> > this one was not bothering so much, but it's true it's cleaner with this.
> >
On 1/30/07, Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Did you test it? I'm fairly certain it still won't work. AFAICS You're not
setting the field anywhere.
it solved the compilation, which was broken, which was my primary
concern. Your patches normally don't break the build :)
so in a sense, with
