10.12.2019 23:27, John Snow wrote:
>
>
> On 12/10/19 8:24 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 10.12.19 09:11, Max Reitz wrote:
>>> On 09.12.19 23:03, Eric Blake wrote:
On 12/9/19 11:58 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 09.12.19 17:30, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 02.12.19 15:09, Vladimir
On 12/10/19 8:24 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 10.12.19 09:11, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 09.12.19 23:03, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> On 12/9/19 11:58 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
On 09.12.19 17:30, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 02.12.19 15:09, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>> Hi again!
>>
>>
On 10.12.19 09:11, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 09.12.19 23:03, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 12/9/19 11:58 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
>>> On 09.12.19 17:30, Max Reitz wrote:
On 02.12.19 15:09, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> Hi again!
>
> Still forgotten bug-fix :(
>
> Is it too late
On 09.12.19 23:03, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 12/9/19 11:58 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 09.12.19 17:30, Max Reitz wrote:
>>> On 02.12.19 15:09, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Hi again!
Still forgotten bug-fix :(
Is it too late for 4.2?
>>>
>>> Sorry. :-/
>>>
>>> Yes, I
On 12/9/19 11:58 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
On 09.12.19 17:30, Max Reitz wrote:
On 02.12.19 15:09, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Hi again!
Still forgotten bug-fix :(
Is it too late for 4.2?
Sorry. :-/
Yes, I think I just forgot it. I don’t think it’s too important for
4.2, so, well, it
On 09.12.19 17:30, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 02.12.19 15:09, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>> Hi again!
>>
>> Still forgotten bug-fix :(
>>
>> Is it too late for 4.2?
>
> Sorry. :-/
>
> Yes, I think I just forgot it. I don’t think it’s too important for
> 4.2, so, well, it isn’t too bad,
On 02.12.19 15:09, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> Hi again!
>
> Still forgotten bug-fix :(
>
> Is it too late for 4.2?
Sorry. :-/
Yes, I think I just forgot it. I don’t think it’s too important for
4.2, so, well, it isn’t too bad, but... Sorry.
> I can't imagine better test, and it
Hi again!
Still forgotten bug-fix :(
Is it too late for 4.2?
I can't imagine better test, and it tests exactly what written in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1712636
(Hmm, actually, I doubt that it is real use-case, more probably it's a bug in
management layer)
So, take this
Hi!
Don't we forget it?
Here is a bug-fix, I think we want it for 4.2.
14.10.2019 14:51, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> Here is a fix for persistent bitmaps managing: we must check existent
> but not yet stored bitmaps for qcow2-related constraints, like maximum
> number of
Hi all!
Here is a fix for persistent bitmaps managing: we must check existent
but not yet stored bitmaps for qcow2-related constraints, like maximum
number of bitmaps in qcow2 image.
v2:
01: change assertion to error-return at function start
Be free to add
Reported-by: aihua liang
14.10.2019 14:51, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> Here is a fix for persistent bitmaps managing: we must check existent
> but not yet stored bitmaps for qcow2-related constraints, like maximum
> number of bitmaps in qcow2 image.
>
> v2:
main thing based on
11 matches
Mail list logo