[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/3] qcow2: Fix unaligned prealloca
From: |
Max Reitz |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/3] qcow2: Fix unaligned preallocated truncation |
Date: |
Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:30:27 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 |
On 2017-10-10 00:25, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 10/09/2017 04:55 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> A qcow2 image file's length is not required to have a length that is a
>> multiple of the cluster size. However, qcow2_refcount_area() expects an
>> aligned value for its @start_offset parameter, so we need to round
>> @old_file_size up to the next cluster boundary.
>>
>> Reported-by: pingl <address@hidden>
>
> Should we use a real name? My autocomplete when adding cc suggests Ping Li.
So does Red Hat's staff search. :-)
I thought I'd just take the name from the BZ, so I'd be safe -- pleading
the fact that real names are only required for S-o-bs. But well, why not.
> (The upcoming git 2.15.0 adds my patch that auto-cc's anyone listed in
> Reported-by, so we don't have to keep doing it manually:
> https://github.com/git/git/commit/09ac6737 - but that doesn't help you
> while you are still on 2.13.6)
I like doing it manually because I don't like CC-ing only singular
patches of a series, though -- at least not without CC-ing the cover
letter, too.
So far I was lucky enough not to get into a situation where I didn't
want someone I wanted to CC on one patch not to see the whole series.
(In this case here I don't think Red Hat QA gains much from seeing the
upstream patch.) If I get unlucky in the future, I guess I'll have to
extend my email sending script...
>> Bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1414049
>> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <address@hidden>
>> ---
>> block/qcow2.c | 1 +
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>
> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>
Thanks!
Max
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature