Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >>>> On 13.01.14 at 14:45, David Vrabel <david.vra...@citrix.com> wrote: >> On 13/01/14 13:16, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 13.01.14 at 14:00, Ian Campbell <ian.campb...@citrix.com> >wrote: >>>> On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 12:34 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>>> On 13.01.14 at 13:01, Olaf Hering <o...@aepfle.de> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Jan 13, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> You can't do this in one go - the first two and the last one may >be >>>>>>> set independently (and are independent in their meaning), and >>>>>>> hence need to be queried independently (xenbus_gather() fails >>>>>>> on the first absent value). >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, thats the purpose. Since the properties are required its an >all or >>>>>> nothing thing. If they are truly optional then blkif.h should be >updated >>>>>> to say that. >>>>> >>>>> They _are_ optional. >>>> >>>> But is it true that either they are all present or they are all >absent? >>> >>> No, it's not. discard-secure is independent of the other two (but >>> those other two are tied together). >> >> Can we have a patch to blkif.h that clarifies this? >> >> e.g., >> >> feature-discard >> >> ... >> >> discard-granularity and discard-offset must also be present if >> feature-discard is enabled > >It would be "may" here too afaict. But I'll defer to Konrad, who >has done more work in this area... > >Jan > >> discard-secure may also be present if feature-discard is enabled. >> >> David > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Xen-devel mailing list >xen-de...@lists.xen.org >http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
It is all 'may'. If there is just 'feature-discard' without any other options that is OK. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
