On 06/29/2017 11:11 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 06/29/2017 03:28 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Can we apply my "[PATCH v22 00/30] qcow2: persistent dirty bitmaps"
>> first? It was already near to the victory a week ago, but I had to
>> rebase it on new Paolo's patches.
>
>
On 06/29/2017 03:28 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Can we apply my "[PATCH v22 00/30] qcow2: persistent dirty bitmaps"
> first? It was already near to the victory a week ago, but I had to
> rebase it on new Paolo's patches.
Sure, I can rebase on top of yours (I've already rebas
Hi!
Can we apply my "[PATCH v22 00/30] qcow2: persistent dirty bitmaps"
first? It was already near to the victory a week ago, but I had to
rebase it on new Paolo's patches.
28.06.2017 20:55, Eric Blake wrote:
There are patches floating around to add NBD_CMD_BLOCK_STATUS,
but NBD wants to rep
There are patches floating around to add NBD_CMD_BLOCK_STATUS,
but NBD wants to report status on byte granularity (even if the
reporting will probably be naturally aligned to sectors or even
much higher levels). I've therefore started the task of
converting our block status code to report at a byt
