On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 08:11:19AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 04.03.13 at 21:44, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.w...@oracle.com> > >>> wrote: > > <nods> 'op' sounds good. With a comment saying it can do all of the > > BLKIF_OPS_.. > > except the BLKIF_OP_INDIRECT one. Thought one could in theory chain > > it that way for fun. > > In fact I'd like to exclude chaining as well as BLKIF_OP_DISCARD here. > The former should - if useful for anything - be controlled by a > separate feature flag, and the latter is plain pointless to indirect. > And I reckon the same would apply to BLKIF_OP_FLUSH_DISKCACHE > and BLKIF_OP_RESERVED_1 - i.e. it might be better to state that > indirection is only permitted for normal I/O (read/write) ops.
<nods> That makes sense. And also of course the new BLKIF_OP should be documented in the Xen tree as well. > > Jan > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/