On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 03:34 +0000, Dustin Kirkland wrote:
>
> I'm looking at the KVM in Jaunty right now, and it looks like this
> patch is currently in there.
>
> Can you please help me understand if this other patch from Novell is
> needed in addition? Or is it a "one-or-the-other" deal?
> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/18915375/usb-linux.patch
>
The Novell patch is not needed.
I based my patch on combining Robert Schiele's approach with the
existing USB file-system mechanisms so that QEMU/KVM can detect and use
any of them it finds, with the order of preference being
sys-fs, /dev/bus/, or /proc/bus/.
To confirm this the code should show, in part:
* This code is based on Robert Schiele's original patches posted to
* the Novell bug-tracker https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241950
*/
static int usb_host_scan_sys(void *opaque, USBScanFunc *func)
On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 03:34 +0000, Dustin Kirkland wrote: launchpadlibrar ian.net/ 18915375/ usb-linux. patch
>
> I'm looking at the KVM in Jaunty right now, and it looks like this
> patch is currently in there.
>
> Can you please help me understand if this other patch from Novell is
> needed in addition? Or is it a "one-or-the-other" deal?
> http://
>
The Novell patch is not needed.
I based my patch on combining Robert Schiele's approach with the
existing USB file-system mechanisms so that QEMU/KVM can detect and use
any of them it finds, with the order of preference being
sys-fs, /dev/bus/, or /proc/bus/.
To confirm this the code should show, in part:
* This code is based on Robert Schiele's original patches posted to /bugzilla. novell. com/show_ bug.cgi? id=241950 scan_sys( void *opaque, USBScanFunc *func)
* the Novell bug-tracker https:/
*/
static int usb_host_