On Tue 27 Feb 2018 05:29:42 PM CET, Eric Blake wrote:
> Match our code to the spec change in the previous patch - there's
> no reason for the refcount table to allow larger offsets than the
> L1/L2 tables. In practice, no image has more than 64PB of
> allocated clusters anyways, as anything beyond
Match our code to the spec change in the previous patch - there's
no reason for the refcount table to allow larger offsets than the
L1/L2 tables. In practice, no image has more than 64PB of
allocated clusters anyways, as anything beyond that can't be
expressed via L2 mappings to host offsets.
