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 <stefa...@redhat.com>: > >> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 09:10:43PM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote: >> >> >>> 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. > > (Catching up with old mails) > > Fine here. > > Stefan