On 3/25/20 8:52 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
If we want to write it like that, which size limit
do you propose? Or asked differently, how much space should we reserve
for other extension headers + backing file name?
Well, that was the “2k/3k/...” list. :)
The backing file name is limited to 1k, so I
On 25.03.20 14:18, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 3/25/20 7:42 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 24.03.20 18:42, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> As the feature name table can be quite large (over 9k if all 64 bits
>>> of all three feature fields have names; a mere 8 features leaves only
>>> 8 bytes for a backing file name
On 3/25/20 7:42 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
On 24.03.20 18:42, Eric Blake wrote:
As the feature name table can be quite large (over 9k if all 64 bits
of all three feature fields have names; a mere 8 features leaves only
8 bytes for a backing file name in a 512-byte cluster), it is unwise
to emit this o
On 24.03.20 18:42, Eric Blake wrote:
> As the feature name table can be quite large (over 9k if all 64 bits
> of all three feature fields have names; a mere 8 features leaves only
> 8 bytes for a backing file name in a 512-byte cluster), it is unwise
> to emit this optional header in images with sm
As the feature name table can be quite large (over 9k if all 64 bits
of all three feature fields have names; a mere 8 features leaves only
8 bytes for a backing file name in a 512-byte cluster), it is unwise
to emit this optional header in images with small cluster sizes.
Update iotest 036 to skip
