27.09.2018 20:02, Max Reitz wrote:
On 27.09.18 18:58, Max Reitz wrote:
On 07.08.18 19:43, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
From: "Denis V. Lunev"
We are not working with a shared state data in the decruption code and
(*decryption)
thus this operation is safe. On the other hand this sign
On 27.09.18 18:58, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 07.08.18 19:43, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>> From: "Denis V. Lunev"
>>
>> We are not working with a shared state data in the decruption code and
(*decryption)
>> thus this operation is safe. On the other hand this significantly
>> reduces the sc
On 07.08.18 19:43, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> From: "Denis V. Lunev"
>
> We are not working with a shared state data in the decruption code and
> thus this operation is safe. On the other hand this significantly
> reduces the scope of the lock.
Sure, but does it have any effect? This
From: "Denis V. Lunev"
We are not working with a shared state data in the decruption code and
thus this operation is safe. On the other hand this significantly
reduces the scope of the lock.
Signed-off-by: Denis V. Lunev
---
block/qcow2.c | 14 --
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6
