On 04/04/2016 11:08 PM, Alex Bligh wrote: > On 4 Apr 2016, at 21:04, Denis V. Lunev <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Sure, but given you can't report dirtiness without also reporting >>> allocation, if they are are at different blocksize I'd rather they >>> were in different commands, because otherwise the code to report >>> block size needs to work at two different granularities. >>> >> 'dirty' could come after the data was 'trimmed' from the region! >> thus we could have dirty unallocated data. > Let me rephrase. > > Under the current proposal it is not possible to report whether or > not a region is dirty without also reporting whether or not it > is allocated. As these two concepts exist at potentially > different block sizes, the code to support reporting on allocation > must now be able to run both at the allocation blocksize and > the dirtiness blocksize, which is going to be a pain. > > If these were two different commands, they could each run at their > natural block size. > could you look into V1 of this?
As far as I remember that text we have had a number in request specifying which bitmap to query and the server should reply with one bitmap at a time. Would this work for you? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Nbd-general mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nbd-general
