On 03/24/2016 02:26 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> No, there is no specific reason. Looks like NBD_CMD_FLAG_ZEROES fits the
>> spec and implementations nicely. So I'll rewrite the extension and add
>> the flag instead of the whole command.
>
> Actually, having given this some more thought...
>
>
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 10:16:19AM +0300, Pavel Borzenkov wrote:
> So if no one objects, I'll send a patch correcting current spec
> ambiguities and than patches with new proposed commands.
Yes please. Thank you.
--
< ron> I mean, the main *practical* problem with C++, is there's like a dozen
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 09:14:10AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 03/23/2016 08:16 AM, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> > From: Pavel Borzenkov
> >
> > There exist some cases when a client knows that the data it is going to
> > write is all zeroes. Such cases include mirroring or
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 09:14:10AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 03/23/2016 08:16 AM, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
[...]
> [1] Oh, you ARE adding this to the "Experimental extensions" section of
> the document, so your wording IS correct. I guess the idea is that we
> write up the documentation in the
On 03/23/2016 08:16 AM, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> From: Pavel Borzenkov
>
> There exist some cases when a client knows that the data it is going to
> write is all zeroes. Such cases include mirroring or backing up a device
> implemented by a sparse file.
>
> With current