On Sat 22 Apr 2017 07:56:57 PM CEST, Max Reitz wrote:
>> So, if you got this far in reading, the question becomes whether
>> having a mode where you can mark a cluster as
>> mapping-reserved-but-unallocated has enough use case to be worth
>> pursuing, knowing that it will burn an incompatible
Am 22.04.2017 um 19:56 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> On 21.04.2017 23:09, Eric Blake wrote:
> > And meanwhile, it looks like I have some patches to propose (and
> > qemu-iotests to write) if I can help fix the bugs I've pointed out.
>
> You mean these?
>
On 21.04.2017 23:09, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 04/06/2017 11:40 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>
>>> === Changes to the on-disk format ===
>>>
>>> The qcow2 on-disk format needs to change so each L2 entry has a bitmap
>>> indicating the allocation status of each subcluster. There are three
>>> possible
On 04/06/2017 11:40 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> === Changes to the on-disk format ===
>>
>> The qcow2 on-disk format needs to change so each L2 entry has a bitmap
>> indicating the allocation status of each subcluster. There are three
>> possible states (unallocated, allocated, all zeroes), so we
