On 09.11.2015 17:21, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 06.11.2015 19:59, John Snow wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/04/2015 01:57 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
>>> bdrv_delete() is not very happy about deleting BlockDriverStates with
>>> dirty bitmaps still attached to them. In the past, we got around that
>>> very easily by
Am 04.11.2015 um 19:57 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> bdrv_delete() is not very happy about deleting BlockDriverStates with
> dirty bitmaps still attached to them. In the past, we got around that
> very easily by relying on bdrv_close_all() bypassing bdrv_delete(), and
> bdrv_close() simply ignoring
On 09.11.2015 17:04, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 04.11.2015 um 19:57 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
>> bdrv_delete() is not very happy about deleting BlockDriverStates with
>> dirty bitmaps still attached to them. In the past, we got around that
>> very easily by relying on bdrv_close_all() bypassing
On 06.11.2015 19:59, John Snow wrote:
>
>
> On 11/04/2015 01:57 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> bdrv_delete() is not very happy about deleting BlockDriverStates with
>> dirty bitmaps still attached to them. In the past, we got around that
>> very easily by relying on bdrv_close_all() bypassing
On 11/04/2015 01:57 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
> bdrv_delete() is not very happy about deleting BlockDriverStates with
> dirty bitmaps still attached to them. In the past, we got around that
> very easily by relying on bdrv_close_all() bypassing bdrv_delete(), and
> bdrv_close() simply ignoring that
bdrv_delete() is not very happy about deleting BlockDriverStates with
dirty bitmaps still attached to them. In the past, we got around that
very easily by relying on bdrv_close_all() bypassing bdrv_delete(), and
bdrv_close() simply ignoring that condition. We should fix that by
releasing all dirty