On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Am 22.06.2012 17:08, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
>> The lazy refcounts bit indicates that this image can take advantage of
>> the dirty bit and that refcount updates can be postponed.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>  docs/specs/qcow2.txt |    6 +++++-
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/docs/specs/qcow2.txt b/docs/specs/qcow2.txt
>> index 3a789ce..8b2c0eb 100644
>> --- a/docs/specs/qcow2.txt
>> +++ b/docs/specs/qcow2.txt
>> @@ -85,7 +85,11 @@ in the description of a field.
>>                      Bitmask of compatible features. An implementation can
>>                      safely ignore any unknown bits that are set.
>>
>> -                    Bits 0-63:  Reserved (set to 0)
>> +                    Bit 0: Lazy refcounts bit.  If this bit is set then lazy
>> +                           refcount updates can be used.  This means 
>> postponing
>> +                           marking the image file dirty and postponing 
>> refcount
>> +                           metadata updates.
>> +                    Bits 1-63:  Reserved (set to 0)
>
> Please keep the formatting consistent: The description for bit 0 should
> be indented to the same level as "Reserved", and an empty line should be
> left between each description.
>
> Regarding indentation, the same applies to patch 1.

Sorry, the formatting wasn't obvious to me.  Will fix.

Stefan

Reply via email to