On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 04:50:08PM +0200, Natanael Copa wrote: > On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 12:30:47 +0100 > "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > The whole point of physmem_total is that libvirt can avoid having to > > have a bunch of different implementations. Any kind of fix that libvirt > > could do, can equally be done in the physmem_total, so there's no reason > > to not rely on physmem_total. So we only need to fix physmem_total, and > > the musl libc. > > > > The only reason to fix libvirt, is if there's some problem that would > > prevent us getting the fix into gnulib in an acceptable timeframe. > > Fair enough. > > I posted a bug report and a patch to bugs-gnulib. Thanks for making the effort / taking the time to fix gnulib. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list