On 04/28/2017 12:35 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 27.04.2017 03:46, Eric Blake wrote:
>> We were throwing away the preallocation information associated with
>> zero clusters. But we should be matching the well-defined semantics
>> in bdrv_get_block_status(), where (BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO |
>> BDRV_BLOCK_OFFS
On 27.04.2017 03:46, Eric Blake wrote:
> We were throwing away the preallocation information associated with
> zero clusters. But we should be matching the well-defined semantics
> in bdrv_get_block_status(), where (BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO |
> BDRV_BLOCK_OFFSET_VALID) informs the user which offset is rese
We were throwing away the preallocation information associated with
zero clusters. But we should be matching the well-defined semantics
in bdrv_get_block_status(), where (BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO |
BDRV_BLOCK_OFFSET_VALID) informs the user which offset is reserved,
while still reminding the user that readi