On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 01:02:37PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 12/14/2016 12:52 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 06:20:57PM +0000, Alex Bligh wrote: > >> Wouter, > >>> Did the implementation of WRITE_ZEROES encounter any issues with the spec > >>> that we might want to fix up? Or did things work out as expected? > >> > >> It was fine in nbdserver, and also fine in gonbdserver. Admittedly I didn't > >> have a 'real' client to test it against. > > > > Oh, I missed that part. > > > > Is there a client anywhere that is more than a test thing? If not, then > > perhaps > > hold off on merging for now until that exists too. > > Qemu 2.8 (currently at -rc3, not officially released yet but should be > soon, but none of the pending patches between -rc3 and the final release > will affect nbd behavior) has both a client and a server implementation, > and I'm also set up to turn on tracing in either the client or the > server in order to trace what the other side sends over the wire.
That's good enough for me, thanks. > An arbitrary client is a bit harder to test if you don't know how to provoke > it into sending write zero commands, but qemu-io serves as a nice testbed > that lets the qemu client send arbitrary commands to any server. -- < ron> I mean, the main *practical* problem with C++, is there's like a dozen people in the world who think they really understand all of its rules, and pretty much all of them are just lying to themselves too. -- #debian-devel, OFTC, 2016-02-12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Nbd-general mailing list Nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nbd-general