> Am 18.10.2013 um 15:50 schrieb Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>: > > 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 actually, just thinking loudly. > >>> - bdrv_unallocated_blocks_are_zero for bdrv_has_discard_zeroes >>> >>> But I'm not sure why we have different BlockDriver APIs. I'd rather put >>> the new flags in BlockDriverInfo, and make the new functions simple >>> wrappers around bdrv_get_info. I think I proposed that before, maybe I >>> wasn't clear or I was misunderstood. >> I think Kevin wanted to have special functions for this. > > Yes, but I think he referred to block.c functions not BlockDriver functions.
Ok, if Stefan and Kevin agree i will change it once more. I Would also like some Feedback on the new names for the functions and changed description. I can send a respin next week then. Peter > > Paolo