Am 16.09.2010 17:40, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> On 09/15/2010 11:06 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>>> The use of protocols in backing_files is currently broken because of some
>>> checks for adjusting relative pathnames.
>>>
>>> Additionally, there's a spurious read whe
On 09/15/2010 11:06 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
The use of protocols in backing_files is currently broken because of some
checks for adjusting relative pathnames.
Additionally, there's a spurious read when using an nbd protocol that can be
quite destructive when using c
Am 16.09.2010 15:00, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> On 09/16/2010 03:08 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Am 11.09.2010 16:04, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>>
>>> The use of protocols in backing_files is currently broken because of some
>>> checks for adjusting relative pathnames.
>>>
>>> Additionally, there's
On 09/16/2010 03:08 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 11.09.2010 16:04, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
The use of protocols in backing_files is currently broken because of some
checks for adjusting relative pathnames.
Additionally, there's a spurious read when using an nbd protocol that can be
quite destr
Am 11.09.2010 16:04, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> The use of protocols in backing_files is currently broken because of some
> checks for adjusting relative pathnames.
>
> Additionally, there's a spurious read when using an nbd protocol that can be
> quite destructive when using copy-on-read. Potent
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> The use of protocols in backing_files is currently broken because of some
> checks for adjusting relative pathnames.
>
> Additionally, there's a spurious read when using an nbd protocol that can be
> quite destructive when using copy-on-read. Potentially, this can lead to
