Hi Stefan, please have a Look at v7 of this series. Hopefully the final one.
Thx,
> Am 30.10.2013 um 09:28 schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi :
>
>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 09:10:43PM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Am 18.10.2013 um 15:50 schrieb Paolo Bonzini :
>>>
>>> Il 18/10/2013 15:26, Peter L
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 09:10:43PM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
>
>
> > Am 18.10.2013 um 15:50 schrieb Paolo Bonzini :
> >
> > Il 18/10/2013 15:26, Peter Lieven ha scritto:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> - bdrv_discard_zeroes for bdrv_has_discard_write_zeroes
> >> This would conform to the linux ioctl BLKDIS
> Am 18.10.2013 um 15:50 schrieb Paolo Bonzini :
>
> Il 18/10/2013 15:26, Peter Lieven ha scritto:
>>>
>>>
>>> - bdrv_discard_zeroes for bdrv_has_discard_write_zeroes
>> This would conform to the linux ioctl BLKDISCARDZEROES.
>> However, we need the write_zeroes operation for a guarantee
>> th
Il 18/10/2013 15:52, Peter Lieven ha scritto:
>
> Regarding putting this info into the BDI I am fine with that, but I
> would keep the wrapper functions.
> On the other hand, bdrv_has_zero_init is also not in the BDI... I had it
> in the BDI and got the request
> to move it to separate functions.
On 18.10.2013 15:24, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 02:49:11PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 18/10/2013 14:38, Stefan Hajnoczi ha scritto:
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 01:58:08PM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
this patch does 2 things:
a) only do additional call outs if BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO
Il 18/10/2013 15:26, Peter Lieven ha scritto:
>>
>>
>> - bdrv_discard_zeroes for bdrv_has_discard_write_zeroes
> This would conform to the linux ioctl BLKDISCARDZEROES.
> However, we need the write_zeroes operation for a guarantee
> that zeroes are return.
Yes. I'm fine with the current names act
On 18.10.2013 14:49, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 18/10/2013 14:38, Stefan Hajnoczi ha scritto:
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 01:58:08PM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
this patch does 2 things:
a) only do additional call outs if BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO is not already set.
b) use the newly introduced bdrv_has_discard_
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 02:49:11PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 18/10/2013 14:38, Stefan Hajnoczi ha scritto:
> > On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 01:58:08PM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
> >> this patch does 2 things:
> >> a) only do additional call outs if BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO is not already set.
> >> b) use
On 18.10.2013 14:38, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 01:58:08PM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
this patch does 2 things:
a) only do additional call outs if BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO is not already set.
b) use the newly introduced bdrv_has_discard_zeroes() to return the
zero state of an unal
Il 18/10/2013 14:38, Stefan Hajnoczi ha scritto:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 01:58:08PM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
>> this patch does 2 things:
>> a) only do additional call outs if BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO is not already set.
>> b) use the newly introduced bdrv_has_discard_zeroes() to return the
>>zero s
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 01:58:08PM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
> this patch does 2 things:
> a) only do additional call outs if BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO is not already set.
> b) use the newly introduced bdrv_has_discard_zeroes() to return the
>zero state of an unallocated block. the used callout to
>
this patch does 2 things:
a) only do additional call outs if BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO is not already set.
b) use the newly introduced bdrv_has_discard_zeroes() to return the
zero state of an unallocated block. the used callout to
bdrv_has_zero_init() is only valid right after bdrv_create.
Reviewed-by
12 matches
Mail list logo
