qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bugfix ping2] Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] fix qcow2_can_store_new_dirty_bitm


From: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
Subject: Re: [bugfix ping2] Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] fix qcow2_can_store_new_dirty_bitmap
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 14:09:20 +0000

Hi again!

Still forgotten bug-fix :(

Is it too late for 4.2?

I can't imagine better test, and it tests exactly what written in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1712636

(Hmm, actually, I doubt that it is real use-case, more probably it's a bug in 
management layer)

So, take this with test or without test, to 4.2 or 5.0.

25.10.2019 12:57, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Don't we forget it?
> 
> Here is a bug-fix, I think we want it for 4.2.
> 
> 14.10.2019 14:51, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>> Hi all!
>>
>> Here is a fix for persistent bitmaps managing: we must check existent
>> but not yet stored bitmaps for qcow2-related constraints, like maximum
>> number of bitmaps in qcow2 image.
>>
>> v2:
>>
>> 01: change assertion to error-return at function start
>>      Be free to add
>>      Reported-by: aihua liang <address@hidden>
>>      Fixes: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1712636
>>      if it's appropriate
>> 02: new test
>>      Ohh, it takes about 4 minutes. Be free to drop it, as I doubt that
>>      it worth to have. The case is simple, we may live without a
>>      test.
>>
>> Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy (2):
>>    qcow2-bitmaps: fix qcow2_can_store_new_dirty_bitmap
>>    iotests: add 269 to check maximum of bitmaps in qcow2
>>
>>   block/qcow2-bitmap.c       | 41 +++++++++++++++------------------
>>   tests/qemu-iotests/269     | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   tests/qemu-iotests/269.out |  3 +++
>>   tests/qemu-iotests/group   |  1 +
>>   4 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>>   create mode 100755 tests/qemu-iotests/269
>>   create mode 100644 tests/qemu-iotests/269.out
>>
> 
> 


-- 
Best regards,
Vladimir

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]