On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 11:26:18PM +0200, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 08.05.2017 16:15, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > The refcount metadata size calculation is inaccurate and can produce
> > numbers that are too small. This is bad because we should calculate a
> > conservative number - one that is guarante
On 08.05.2017 16:15, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> The refcount metadata size calculation is inaccurate and can produce
> numbers that are too small. This is bad because we should calculate a
> conservative number - one that is guaranteed to be large enough.
>
> This patch switches the approach to a f
On 08.05.2017 17:00, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 05/08/2017 09:15 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> The refcount metadata size calculation is inaccurate and can produce
>> numbers that are too small. This is bad because we should calculate a
>> conservative number - one that is guaranteed to be large enoug
On 05/08/2017 09:15 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> The refcount metadata size calculation is inaccurate and can produce
> numbers that are too small. This is bad because we should calculate a
> conservative number - one that is guaranteed to be large enough.
>
> This patch switches the approach to
The refcount metadata size calculation is inaccurate and can produce
numbers that are too small. This is bad because we should calculate a
conservative number - one that is guaranteed to be large enough.
This patch switches the approach to a fixed point calculation because
the existing equation i
