The Saturday 11 Oct 2014 à 11:44:20 (+0200), Max Reitz wrote :
> Am 10.10.2014 um 13:50 schrieb Benoît Canet:
> >The Saturday 16 Aug 2014 à 20:54:16 (+0200), Max Reitz wrote :
> >>When falling through to the underlying file in
> >>bdrv_co_get_block_status(), do not let the number of sectors for whi
Am 10.10.2014 um 13:50 schrieb Benoît Canet:
The Saturday 16 Aug 2014 à 20:54:16 (+0200), Max Reitz wrote :
When falling through to the underlying file in
bdrv_co_get_block_status(), do not let the number of sectors for which
information could be obtained be overwritten.
Signed-off-by: Max Reit
The Saturday 16 Aug 2014 à 20:54:16 (+0200), Max Reitz wrote :
> When falling through to the underlying file in
> bdrv_co_get_block_status(), do not let the number of sectors for which
> information could be obtained be overwritten.
>
> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz
> ---
> block.c | 6 --
> 1 fi
On 08/16/2014 12:54 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
> When falling through to the underlying file in
> bdrv_co_get_block_status(), do not let the number of sectors for which
> information could be obtained be overwritten.
>
> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz
> ---
> block.c | 6 --
> 1 file changed, 4 insertio
When falling through to the underlying file in
bdrv_co_get_block_status(), do not let the number of sectors for which
information could be obtained be overwritten.
Signed-off-by: Max Reitz
---
block.c | 6 --
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block.c b/block.c
ind
