On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 05:51:20PM +0100, Peter Lieven wrote:
> Am 04.12.2013 17:46, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:07:01AM +0100, Peter Lieven wrote:
> >> +/* If the output image is being created as a copy on write
> >> + * image, assume tha
Am 04.12.2013 17:46, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:07:01AM +0100, Peter Lieven wrote:
>> +/* If the output image is being created as a copy on write
>> + * image, assume that sectors which are unallocated in the
>> + * input im
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:07:01AM +0100, Peter Lieven wrote:
> +/* If the output image is being created as a copy on write
> + * image, assume that sectors which are unallocated in the
> + * input image are present in both the output's and input's
>
Il 27/11/2013 11:07, Peter Lieven ha scritto:
> we currently do not check if a sector is allocated during convert.
> This means if a sector is unallocated that we allocate a bounce
> buffer of zeroes, find out its zero later and do not write it
> in the best case. In the worst case this can lead to
we currently do not check if a sector is allocated during convert.
This means if a sector is unallocated that we allocate a bounce
buffer of zeroes, find out its zero later and do not write it
in the best case. In the worst case this can lead to reading
blocks from a raw device (like iSCSI) altough
