On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 07:29:07PM +, Nir Soffer wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 2:28 PM Stefan Hajnoczi
wrote:
>>
>> > v3:
>> > * Drop RFC, this is ready to go for QEMU 2.10
>> > * Use "required size" instead of "required bytes" i
e we add
>
> Please let me know if that calculation is acceptable and makes since
> for this use case
>
> Thanks,
> Maor
>
>
>
>>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 05:49:58PM +0200, Nir Soffer wrote:
&
wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 05:49:58PM +0200, Nir Soffer wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 05:46:19PM +0200, Maor Lipchuk wrote:
>>>> >> I was wonde
Hi all,
I was wondering if that is possible to provide a new API that
estimates the size of
qcow2 image converted from a raw image. We could use this new API to
allocate the
size more precisely before the convert operation.
What are we trying to do:
- Convert raw sparse image from NFS or from blo
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 19.12.2016 um 13:49 hat Maor Lipchuk geschrieben:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Maor Lipchuk
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Does amend considered as an atomic operation or sh
Hi All,
Does amend considered as an atomic operation or should we mark a volume as
ILLEGAL once the amend operation fails?
also, if I call amend, but downgrade the QCOW volume compatibility level
from 1.1 to 0.10, is that atomic as well (or not, based on the answer on
the previous question)?
Reg
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Maor Lipchuk wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Does amend considered as an atomic operation or should we mark a volume as
> ILLEGAL once the amend operation fails?
>
> also, if I call amend, but downgrade the QCOW volume compatibility level
> from 1.1 to
