On 28.04.2017 22:36, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 04/28/2017 03:09 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 28.04.2017 21:59, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> On 04/28/2017 02:46 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
On 27.04.2017 03:46, Eric Blake wrote:
> For the 'alloc' command, accepting an offset in bytes but a length
> in sect
On 04/28/2017 03:09 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 28.04.2017 21:59, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 04/28/2017 02:46 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
>>> On 27.04.2017 03:46, Eric Blake wrote:
For the 'alloc' command, accepting an offset in bytes but a length
in sectors, and reporting output in sectors, is confu
On 28.04.2017 21:59, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 04/28/2017 02:46 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 27.04.2017 03:46, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> For the 'alloc' command, accepting an offset in bytes but a length
>>> in sectors, and reporting output in sectors, is confusing. Do
>>> everything in bytes, and adjust t
On 04/28/2017 02:46 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 27.04.2017 03:46, Eric Blake wrote:
>> For the 'alloc' command, accepting an offset in bytes but a length
>> in sectors, and reporting output in sectors, is confusing. Do
>> everything in bytes, and adjust the expected output accordingly.
>>
>> Signed-
On 27.04.2017 03:46, Eric Blake wrote:
> For the 'alloc' command, accepting an offset in bytes but a length
> in sectors, and reporting output in sectors, is confusing. Do
> everything in bytes, and adjust the expected output accordingly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake
> Reviewed-by: Philippe Mat
For the 'alloc' command, accepting an offset in bytes but a length
in sectors, and reporting output in sectors, is confusing. Do
everything in bytes, and adjust the expected output accordingly.
Signed-off-by: Eric Blake
Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
---
v10: rebase to code cleanup
v9: ne
