On Thu 07 May 2020 05:34:18 PM CEST, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> On Wed 06 May 2020 07:39:48 PM CEST, Eric Blake wrote:
>> In fact, if we rely on 20/31 checking for invalid subclusters when
>> computing nb_clusters, we could probably assert that the start and end
>> cluster in this function are not
On Wed 06 May 2020 07:39:48 PM CEST, Eric Blake wrote:
> In fact, if we rely on 20/31 checking for invalid subclusters when
> computing nb_clusters, we could probably assert that the start and end
> cluster in this function are not invalid, instead of adding the fail:
> label.
I think you're
On 5/6/20 12:14 PM, Alberto Garcia wrote:
Note that you are only skipping until the first normal subcluster, even
if other zero/unallocated clusters occur between the first normal
cluster and the start of the action.
That's correct.
Or visually, suppose we have:
On Tue 05 May 2020 11:59:18 PM CEST, Eric Blake wrote:
>> +for (i = first_sc; i <= last_sc; i++) {
>> +unsigned c = i / s->subclusters_per_cluster;
>> +unsigned sc = i % s->subclusters_per_cluster;
>> +l2_entry = get_l2_entry(s, l2_slice, l2_index + c);
On 5/5/20 12:38 PM, Alberto Garcia wrote:
If an image has subclusters then there are more copy-on-write
scenarios that we need to consider. Let's say we have a write request
from the middle of subcluster #3 until the end of the cluster:
1) If we are writing to a newly allocated cluster then we
If an image has subclusters then there are more copy-on-write
scenarios that we need to consider. Let's say we have a write request
from the middle of subcluster #3 until the end of the cluster:
1) If we are writing to a newly allocated cluster then we need
copy-on-write. The previous contents
