19/07/2018 18:37, Andrew Rybchenko:
> On 19.07.2018 12:42, Anatoly Burakov wrote:
> > Previously, we were skipping erasing pad because we were
> > expecting it to be freed when we were merging adjacent
> > segments. However, if there were no adjacent segments to
> > merge, we would've skipped erasi
On 19.07.2018 12:42, Anatoly Burakov wrote:
Previously, we were skipping erasing pad because we were
expecting it to be freed when we were merging adjacent
segments. However, if there were no adjacent segments to
merge, we would've skipped erasing the pad, leaving non-zero
memory in our free spac
Previously, we were skipping erasing pad because we were
expecting it to be freed when we were merging adjacent
segments. However, if there were no adjacent segments to
merge, we would've skipped erasing the pad, leaving non-zero
memory in our free space.
Fix this by including pad in the erasing u
3 matches
Mail list logo