From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ma4aC-00057x-JZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 09 Aug 2009 05:20:52 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ma4a6-00056o-IW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 09 Aug 2009 05:20:50 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45077 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ma4a6-00056l-9A for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 09 Aug 2009 05:20:46 -0400 Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:38096) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ma4a5-0003IY-Vk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 09 Aug 2009 05:20:46 -0400 Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 10:19:43 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier Message-ID: <20090809091943.GA32524@shareable.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [Qemu-devel] qcow2 corruption - seems to be fixed in kvm-85 and later :-) List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org Hi, Sometimes it's nice to find a mail with good news. A while back I reported corruption with qcow2, with the subject "qcow2 corruption observed, fixed by reverting old change". I'd noticed that kvm-83 was corrupting a Windows 2k disk image, which was failing to boot, blue screening quite early. I found there was a qcow2 bug introduced from kvm-72 to kvm-73, and another from kvm-76 to kvm-77. Reverting both fixed this symptom. In order to check the bug later, I kept a copy of the disk image which blue screened. It still crashes with kvm-84. The release notes indicate there were some qcow2 fixes in that version; they were not enough to fix this problem. There were more qcow2 fixes in kvm-85. Happily, I can now report that kvm-85 and kvm-88 both boot this image with no apparent problems, and I will be deleting this junk disk image now that I'm confident no further testing is required :-) Thanks! -- Jamie