On 10/19/2012 10:46 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> As it happens, we despite what Eric Blake said, we couldn't get an unsafe
>> rebase to no backing file to work with the existing code (with our without
>> our patch). The second option may fix this bug. Reading line 1497, is this
>> because the semantic
Am 18.10.2012 23:20, schrieb Alex Bligh:
> Kevin,
>
> --On 17 October 2012 16:45:39 +0200 Kevin Wolf wrote:
>
>> um_sectors) {
>>> @@ -1675,7 +1679,12 @@ static int img_rebase(int argc, char **argv)
>>> * backing file are overwritten in the COW file now, so the visible
>>> content
>>>
Kevin,
--On 17 October 2012 16:45:39 +0200 Kevin Wolf wrote:
um_sectors) {
@@ -1675,7 +1679,12 @@ static int img_rebase(int argc, char **argv)
* backing file are overwritten in the COW file now, so the visible content
* doesn't change when we switch the backing file.
*/
-
Am 16.10.2012 14:46, schrieb Alex Bligh:
> This patch allows an empty filename to be passed as the new base image name
> for qemu-img rebase to mean base the image on no backing file (i.e.
> independent of any backing file). According to Eric Blake, qemu-img rebase
> already supports this when '-u'
Am 16.10.2012 14:46, schrieb Alex Bligh:
> This patch allows an empty filename to be passed as the new base image name
> for qemu-img rebase to mean base the image on no backing file (i.e.
> independent of any backing file). According to Eric Blake, qemu-img rebase
> already supports this when '-u'
This patch allows an empty filename to be passed as the new base image name
for qemu-img rebase to mean base the image on no backing file (i.e.
independent of any backing file). According to Eric Blake, qemu-img rebase
already supports this when '-u' is used; this adds support when -u is not
used.
