2011/8/5 Frediano Ziglio :
> 2011/8/5 Kevin Wolf :
>> Am 05.08.2011 08:35, schrieb Frediano Ziglio:
>>> 2011/8/4 Kevin Wolf :
When loading an internal snapshot whose L1 table is smaller than the
current L1
table, the size of the current L1 would be shrunk to the snapshot's L1
2011/8/5 Kevin Wolf :
> Am 05.08.2011 08:35, schrieb Frediano Ziglio:
>> 2011/8/4 Kevin Wolf :
>>> When loading an internal snapshot whose L1 table is smaller than the
>>> current L1
>>> table, the size of the current L1 would be shrunk to the snapshot's L1 size
>>> in
>>> memory, but not on disk
Am 05.08.2011 08:35, schrieb Frediano Ziglio:
> 2011/8/4 Kevin Wolf :
>> When loading an internal snapshot whose L1 table is smaller than the current
>> L1
>> table, the size of the current L1 would be shrunk to the snapshot's L1 size
>> in
>> memory, but not on disk. This lead to incorrect refco
2011/8/4 Kevin Wolf :
> When loading an internal snapshot whose L1 table is smaller than the current
> L1
> table, the size of the current L1 would be shrunk to the snapshot's L1 size in
> memory, but not on disk. This lead to incorrect refcount updates and
> eventuelly
> to image corruption.
>
>
Hello,
On Thursday 04 August 2011 18:24:59 Kevin Wolf wrote:
> When loading an internal snapshot whose L1 table is smaller than the
> current L1 table, the size of the current L1 would be shrunk to the
> snapshot's L1 size in memory, but not on disk. This lead to incorrect
> refcount updates and e
When loading an internal snapshot whose L1 table is smaller than the current L1
table, the size of the current L1 would be shrunk to the snapshot's L1 size in
memory, but not on disk. This lead to incorrect refcount updates and eventuelly
to image corruption.
Instead of writing the new L1 size to
