qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Qemu-devel] Re: guestfwd option doesn't allow supplementary , server, n


From: Jan Kiszka
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: guestfwd option doesn't allow supplementary , server, nowait
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:51:26 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); de; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080226 SUSE/2.0.0.12-1.1 Thunderbird/2.0.0.12 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666

Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 06:20:06PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> So this particular issue is (also?) a -stable regression? That should be
>>> easily bisectible.
>> This is what git-bisect said:
>>
>>   c92ef6a22d3c71538fcc48fb61ad353f7ba03b62 is first bad commit
>>   commit c92ef6a22d3c71538fcc48fb61ad353f7ba03b62
>>   Author: Jan Kiszka <address@hidden>
>>   Date:   Wed Jun 24 14:42:28 2009 +0200
>>   
>>       slirp: Rework external configuration interface
>>       
>>       With the internal IP configuration made more flexible, we can now
>>       enhance the user interface. This patch adds a number of new options to
>>       "-net user": net (address and mask), host, dhcpstart, dns and 
>> smbserver.
>>       It also renames "redir" to "hostfwd" and "channel" to "guestfwd" in
>>       order to (hopefully) clarify their meanings. The format of guestfwd is
>>       extended so that the user can define not only the port but also the
>>       virtual server's IP address the forwarding starts from.
>>       
>>       Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <address@hidden>
>>       Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori <address@hidden>
>>   
>>   :100644 100644 18c51190bf5ff20625ecaf3de45bd4aab4403044 
>> f26c3f804ec5d234f76e14200e1188d21923a732 M net.c
>>   :100644 100644 d1c1539e21caf9da16ef1cd68e29976d1abf576f 
>> da5b0ac6a503445431f966de37be0ed3440c6225 M qemu-options.hx
>>   :040000 040000 e371676d54aea53190c3ab3fb36a2d9d8da97ded 
>> af6ed9e3cc7c650828315f836615ffdb829b02a3 M slirp
>>
>> I have stared at the code for quite a while and I don't see the error.
> 
> That commit is not from stable, but from 0.11 (and it is expected to
> introduce the regression for that series). You are confusing me: Are you
> actually seeing a regression with *0.10.5*?

OK, regression is reproducible here with the 0.11 branch but not with
stable-0.10. Will look into the former later.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]