On 2014-10-23 at 09:07, Max Reitz wrote:
On 2014-10-22 at 13:56, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 21.10.2014 um 10:51 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
The bmap size in block/vdi.c may exceed INT_MAX. Using
bdrv_pwrite_sync() (which takes an int byte count) is therefore not a
good idea. The second patch of this s
On 2014-10-22 at 13:56, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 21.10.2014 um 10:51 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
The bmap size in block/vdi.c may exceed INT_MAX. Using
bdrv_pwrite_sync() (which takes an int byte count) is therefore not a
good idea. The second patch of this series fixes this by replacing
bdrv_pwrite_
On 2014-10-22 at 13:56, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 21.10.2014 um 10:51 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
The bmap size in block/vdi.c may exceed INT_MAX. Using
bdrv_pwrite_sync() (which takes an int byte count) is therefore not a
good idea. The second patch of this series fixes this by replacing
bdrv_pwrite_
Am 21.10.2014 um 10:51 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> The bmap size in block/vdi.c may exceed INT_MAX. Using
> bdrv_pwrite_sync() (which takes an int byte count) is therefore not a
> good idea. The second patch of this series fixes this by replacing
> bdrv_pwrite_sync() by bdrv_write()+bdrv_flush() (
The bmap size in block/vdi.c may exceed INT_MAX. Using
bdrv_pwrite_sync() (which takes an int byte count) is therefore not a
good idea. The second patch of this series fixes this by replacing
bdrv_pwrite_sync() by bdrv_write()+bdrv_flush() (we don't need the p in
pwrite here).
The first patch empl
