On 06/21/2016 08:05 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 14.06.2016 um 23:30 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
>> Sector-based limits are awkward to think about; in our on-going
>> quest to move to byte-based interfaces, convert max_discard and
>> discard_alignment. Rename them, using 'pdiscard' as an aid to
>> t
Am 14.06.2016 um 23:30 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
> Sector-based limits are awkward to think about; in our on-going
> quest to move to byte-based interfaces, convert max_discard and
> discard_alignment. Rename them, using 'pdiscard' as an aid to
> track which remaining discard interfaces need con
On Thu, 06/16 08:21, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 06/15/2016 11:46 PM, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > On Tue, 06/14 15:30, Eric Blake wrote:
> >> Sector-based limits are awkward to think about; in our on-going
> >> quest to move to byte-based interfaces, convert max_discard and
> >> discard_alignment. Rename them
On 06/15/2016 11:46 PM, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Tue, 06/14 15:30, Eric Blake wrote:
>> Sector-based limits are awkward to think about; in our on-going
>> quest to move to byte-based interfaces, convert max_discard and
>> discard_alignment. Rename them, using 'pdiscard' as an aid to
>> track which re
On Tue, 06/14 15:30, Eric Blake wrote:
> Sector-based limits are awkward to think about; in our on-going
> quest to move to byte-based interfaces, convert max_discard and
> discard_alignment. Rename them, using 'pdiscard' as an aid to
> track which remaining discard interfaces need conversion, and
Sector-based limits are awkward to think about; in our on-going
quest to move to byte-based interfaces, convert max_discard and
discard_alignment. Rename them, using 'pdiscard' as an aid to
track which remaining discard interfaces need conversion, and so
that the compiler will help us catch the ch
