about subject: shouldn't it be "against disabled bit" instead?
23.02.2019 3:06, John Snow wrote:
> bdrv_set_dirty_bitmap and bdrv_reset_dirty_bitmap are only used as an
> internal API by the mirror and migration areas of our code. These
> calls modify the bitmap, but do so at the behest of QEMU an
On 2/22/19 6:06 PM, John Snow wrote:
> bdrv_set_dirty_bitmap and bdrv_reset_dirty_bitmap are only used as an
> internal API by the mirror and migration areas of our code. These
> calls modify the bitmap, but do so at the behest of QEMU and not the
> guest.
>
> Presently, these bitmaps are always "
bdrv_set_dirty_bitmap and bdrv_reset_dirty_bitmap are only used as an
internal API by the mirror and migration areas of our code. These
calls modify the bitmap, but do so at the behest of QEMU and not the
guest.
Presently, these bitmaps are always "enabled" anyway, but there's no
reason they have
