On 2014-10-21 at 17:11, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 21.10.2014 um 16:55 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
On 2014-10-21 at 12:16, Max Reitz wrote:
On 2014-10-21 at 11:59, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 20.10.2014 um 16:35 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
Because the old refcount structure will be leaked after having rebui
Am 21.10.2014 um 16:55 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> On 2014-10-21 at 12:16, Max Reitz wrote:
> >On 2014-10-21 at 11:59, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >>Am 20.10.2014 um 16:35 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> >>>Because the old refcount structure will be leaked after having rebuilt
> >>>it, we need to recalculate
On 2014-10-21 at 12:16, Max Reitz wrote:
On 2014-10-21 at 11:59, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 20.10.2014 um 16:35 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
Because the old refcount structure will be leaked after having rebuilt
it, we need to recalculate the refcounts and run a leak-fixing
operation
afterwards (if l
On 2014-10-21 at 11:59, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 20.10.2014 um 16:35 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
Because the old refcount structure will be leaked after having rebuilt
it, we need to recalculate the refcounts and run a leak-fixing operation
afterwards (if leaks should be fixed at all).
Signed-off-by
Am 20.10.2014 um 16:35 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> Because the old refcount structure will be leaked after having rebuilt
> it, we need to recalculate the refcounts and run a leak-fixing operation
> afterwards (if leaks should be fixed at all).
>
> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz
> Reviewed-by: Benoît
Because the old refcount structure will be leaked after having rebuilt
it, we need to recalculate the refcounts and run a leak-fixing operation
afterwards (if leaks should be fixed at all).
Signed-off-by: Max Reitz
Reviewed-by: Benoît Canet
---
block/qcow2-refcount.c | 35 ++
