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