Am 10.07.2014 um 10:42 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben:
> On Fri, 06/27 11:44, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > In general, it feels like it would be the right thing to do, especially
> > considering the goal of operation categories in the final state, but on
> > the other hand it means that RESIZE would have to be
On Thu, 07/10 11:25, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 10.07.2014 um 10:42 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben:
> > On Fri, 06/27 11:44, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > > In general, it feels like it would be the right thing to do, especially
> > > considering the goal of operation categories in the final state, but on
> > > the
On Fri, 06/27 11:44, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> In general, it feels like it would be the right thing to do, especially
> considering the goal of operation categories in the final state, but on
> the other hand it means that RESIZE would have to be excluded from
> bs->backing_blocker, too, allowing standa
Am 25.06.2014 um 22:55 hat Jeff Cody geschrieben:
> This fixes a regression in block-commit; if the top image is larger than the
> base image, we attempt to resize the base image. The regression is that we
> fail the image truncate operation, returning -EBUSY.
Thanks, applied to the block branch.
On 06/25/2014 02:55 PM, Jeff Cody wrote:
> This fixes a regression in block-commit; if the top image is larger than the
> base image, we attempt to resize the base image. The regression is that we
> fail the image truncate operation, returning -EBUSY.
>
> Jeff Cody (2):
> block: check for RESIZ
This fixes a regression in block-commit; if the top image is larger than the
base image, we attempt to resize the base image. The regression is that we
fail the image truncate operation, returning -EBUSY.
Jeff Cody (2):
block: check for RESIZE blocker in the QMP command, not
bdrv_truncate()
