On 8/13/19 10:48 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 12.08.19 23:45, John Snow wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/12/19 3:11 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
>>> On 12.08.19 20:39, John Snow wrote:
On 7/25/19 11:55 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 69f47505ee66afaa513305de0c1895a224e52c45 changed block_stat
On 12.08.19 23:45, John Snow wrote:
>
>
> On 8/12/19 3:11 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 12.08.19 20:39, John Snow wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/25/19 11:55 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
Hi,
69f47505ee66afaa513305de0c1895a224e52c45 changed block_status so that it
would only go down to the protoc
On 8/12/19 3:11 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 12.08.19 20:39, John Snow wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/25/19 11:55 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> 69f47505ee66afaa513305de0c1895a224e52c45 changed block_status so that it
>>> would only go down to the protocol layer if the format layer returned
>>> BDRV_BL
On 12.08.19 20:39, John Snow wrote:
>
>
> On 7/25/19 11:55 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> 69f47505ee66afaa513305de0c1895a224e52c45 changed block_status so that it
>> would only go down to the protocol layer if the format layer returned
>> BDRV_BLOCK_RECURSE, thus indicating that it has no suff
On 7/25/19 11:55 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 69f47505ee66afaa513305de0c1895a224e52c45 changed block_status so that it
> would only go down to the protocol layer if the format layer returned
> BDRV_BLOCK_RECURSE, thus indicating that it has no sufficient
> information whether a given range in
