Am 19.09.2016 um 22:39 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
> On 09/18/2016 11:37 PM, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> > On 09/19/2016 04:21 AM, Fam Zheng wrote:
> >> On Thu, 09/15 19:34, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> >>> They should work very similar, covering same areas if backing store is
> >>> shorter than the image.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 01:18:12AM +0200, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 2016-09-15 at 18:34, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> >They should work very similar, covering same areas if backing store is
> >shorter than the image. This change is necessary for the followup patch
> >switching to
On 2016-09-15 at 18:34, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
They should work very similar, covering same areas if backing store is
shorter than the image. This change is necessary for the followup patch
switching to bdrv_get_block_status_above() in mirror to avoid assert
in check_block.
This change should be
On 09/18/2016 11:37 PM, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> On 09/19/2016 04:21 AM, Fam Zheng wrote:
>> On Thu, 09/15 19:34, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
>>> They should work very similar, covering same areas if backing store is
>>> shorter than the image. This change is necessary for the followup patch
>>>
On 09/19/2016 04:21 AM, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Thu, 09/15 19:34, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
>> They should work very similar, covering same areas if backing store is
>> shorter than the image. This change is necessary for the followup patch
>> switching to bdrv_get_block_status_above() in mirror to
On Thu, 09/15 19:34, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> They should work very similar, covering same areas if backing store is
> shorter than the image. This change is necessary for the followup patch
> switching to bdrv_get_block_status_above() in mirror to avoid assert
> in check_block.
>
> This change
They should work very similar, covering same areas if backing store is
shorter than the image. This change is necessary for the followup patch
switching to bdrv_get_block_status_above() in mirror to avoid assert
in check_block.
This change should be made very carefully. Let us assume that we have