From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1FbcsT-0005k1-9g
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 May 2006 08:24:17 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1FbcsS-0005jA-7j
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 May 2006 08:24:16 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FbcsR-0005io-Tf
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 May 2006 08:24:15 -0400
Received: from [64.233.162.199] (helo=nz-out-0102.google.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1Fbct3-00065A-DM
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 May 2006 08:24:53 -0400
Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id i11so419931nzh
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 04 May 2006 05:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <46d6db660605040524h1d5f1484mb3a4cf1e343d6984@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 14:24:15 +0200
From: "Christian MICHON" <christian.michon@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU 0.8.1
In-Reply-To: <46d6db660605040513y3534fecdr5ffe4e632108e413@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <4459165F.7050605@bellard.org>
	<46d6db660605040513y3534fecdr5ffe4e632108e413@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

I removed manually vnc_display_init, and this is not the culprit...
I'll check anyway versus qemu-0.8.0...

On 5/4/06, Christian MICHON <christian.michon@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would say this could be a grab/ungrab issue induced recently
> (vnc patch?). To check it, how do I remove the vnc patch alltogether ?