Am 23.01.2013 16:24, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 09:25:12AM -0500, Federico Simoncelli wrote:
>> @@ -1154,7 +1154,7 @@ int qcow2_check_refcounts(BlockDriverState *bs,
>> BdrvCheckResult *res,
>> s->refcount_table_offset,
>> s->refcount_table_size * sizeof(uint64_t));
>>
>> - for(i = 0; i < s->refcount_table_size; i++) {
>> + for(i = 0, highest_cluster = 0; i < s->refcount_table_size; i++) {
>> uint64_t offset, cluster;
>> offset = s->refcount_table[i];
>> cluster = offset >> s->cluster_bits;
>
> This is the wrong for loop? It should be the next one down.
Oops, how did this happen? I'm pretty sure that one of the earlier
versions had it in the right place.
Anyway, it doesn't change the semantics, could just need a cleanup.
Kevin
