On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com wrote:
Am 27.07.2012 09:56, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com wrote:
Am 25.07.2012 14:21, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
+== Read-only access must still work ==
+read 512/512 bytes at
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com wrote:
Am 25.07.2012 14:21, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
This tests establishes the basic post-conditions of the qcow2 lazy
refcounts features:
1. If the image was closed normally, it is marked clean.
2. If an allocating write was
Am 27.07.2012 09:56, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com wrote:
Am 25.07.2012 14:21, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
+== Read-only access must still work ==
+read 512/512 bytes at offset 0
+512 bytes, X ops; XX:XX:XX.X (XXX YYY/sec and XXX ops/sec)
Am 25.07.2012 14:21, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
This tests establishes the basic post-conditions of the qcow2 lazy
refcounts features:
1. If the image was closed normally, it is marked clean.
2. If an allocating write was performed and the image was not close
normally, then it is
This tests establishes the basic post-conditions of the qcow2 lazy
refcounts features:
1. If the image was closed normally, it is marked clean.
2. If an allocating write was performed and the image was not close
normally, then it is marked dirty.
a. Written data can be read back
On 07/25/2012 06:21 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
This tests establishes the basic post-conditions of the qcow2 lazy
refcounts features:
1. If the image was closed normally, it is marked clean.
2. If an allocating write was performed and the image was not close
normally, then it is
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:54:50AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
On 07/25/2012 06:21 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
This tests establishes the basic post-conditions of the qcow2 lazy
refcounts features:
1. If the image was closed normally, it is marked clean.
2. If an allocating write
On 07/25/2012 04:45 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
Since you are assuming bash (and even if you were to assume POSIX
/bin/sh)...
+
+seq=`basename $0`
I prefer $() over ``.
+echo QA output created by $seq
+
+here=`pwd`
POSIX (and therefore bash) guarantees that $PWD is sane, and faster to