On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 27.07.2012 09:56, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>> Am 25.07.2012 14:21, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
+== Read-only access must still work ==
+read 512/512 bytes at offset 0
+512 by
Am 27.07.2012 09:56, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Am 25.07.2012 14:21, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
>>> +== Read-only access must still work ==
>>> +read 512/512 bytes at offset 0
>>> +512 bytes, X ops; XX:XX:XX.X (XXX YYY/sec and XXX ops/sec)
>>> +i
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 25.07.2012 14:21, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
>> This tests establishes the basic post-conditions of the qcow2 lazy
>> refcounts features:
>>
>> 1. If the image was closed normally, it is marked clean.
>>
>> 2. If an allocating write was per
Am 25.07.2012 14:21, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
> This tests establishes the basic post-conditions of the qcow2 lazy
> refcounts features:
>
> 1. If the image was closed normally, it is marked clean.
>
> 2. If an allocating write was performed and the image was not close
> normally, then i
On 07/25/2012 04:45 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> Since you are assuming bash (and even if you were to assume POSIX
>> /bin/sh)...
>>
>>> +
>>> +seq=`basename $0`
>>
>> I prefer $() over ``.
>>
>>> +echo "QA output created by $seq"
>>> +
>>> +here=`pwd`
>>
>> POSIX (and therefore bash) guarantees
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:54:50AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 07/25/2012 06:21 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > This tests establishes the basic post-conditions of the qcow2 lazy
> > refcounts features:
> >
> > 1. If the image was closed normally, it is marked clean.
> >
> > 2. If an allocat
On 07/25/2012 06:21 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> This tests establishes the basic post-conditions of the qcow2 lazy
> refcounts features:
>
> 1. If the image was closed normally, it is marked clean.
>
> 2. If an allocating write was performed and the image was not close
> normally, then