Am 10.10.2014 um 13:50 schrieb Benoît Canet:
The Saturday 16 Aug 2014 à 20:54:16 (+0200), Max Reitz wrote :
When falling through to the underlying file in
bdrv_co_get_block_status(), do not let the number of sectors for which
information could be obtained be overwritten.
Signed-off-by: Max
The Saturday 11 Oct 2014 à 11:44:20 (+0200), Max Reitz wrote :
Am 10.10.2014 um 13:50 schrieb Benoît Canet:
The Saturday 16 Aug 2014 à 20:54:16 (+0200), Max Reitz wrote :
When falling through to the underlying file in
bdrv_co_get_block_status(), do not let the number of sectors for which
The Saturday 16 Aug 2014 à 20:54:16 (+0200), Max Reitz wrote :
When falling through to the underlying file in
bdrv_co_get_block_status(), do not let the number of sectors for which
information could be obtained be overwritten.
Signed-off-by: Max Reitz mre...@redhat.com
---
block.c | 6
On 08/16/2014 12:54 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
When falling through to the underlying file in
bdrv_co_get_block_status(), do not let the number of sectors for which
information could be obtained be overwritten.
Signed-off-by: Max Reitz mre...@redhat.com
---
block.c | 6 --
1 file changed,
When falling through to the underlying file in
bdrv_co_get_block_status(), do not let the number of sectors for which
information could be obtained be overwritten.
Signed-off-by: Max Reitz mre...@redhat.com
---
block.c | 6 --
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git
