On 04/28/2017 02:53 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 27.04.2017 03:46, Eric Blake wrote:
>> Mixing byte offset and sector allocation counts is a bit
>> confusing. Also, reporting n/m sectors, where m decreases
>> according to the remaining size of the file, isn't really
>> adding any useful information.
On 27.04.2017 03:46, Eric Blake wrote:
> Mixing byte offset and sector allocation counts is a bit
> confusing. Also, reporting n/m sectors, where m decreases
> according to the remaining size of the file, isn't really
> adding any useful information.
Since this map doesn't leave out any range in
Mixing byte offset and sector allocation counts is a bit
confusing. Also, reporting n/m sectors, where m decreases
according to the remaining size of the file, isn't really
adding any useful information. Update the output to use
byte counts, and adjust the affected tests (./check -qcow2 102,
./ch
