On Wed, 2019-08-28 at 12:03 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-08-27 at 18:29 -0400, John Snow wrote:
> >
> > On 8/25/19 3:15 AM, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevi...@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > > block/nvme.c | 83 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > block/trace-events | 2 ++
> > > 2 files changed, 85 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/block/nvme.c b/block/nvme.c
> > > index f8bd11e19a..dd041f39c9 100644
> > > --- a/block/nvme.c
> > > +++ b/block/nvme.c
> > > @@ -112,6 +112,7 @@ typedef struct {
> > > bool plugged;
> > >
> > > bool supports_write_zeros;
> > > + bool supports_discard;
> > >
> > > CoMutex dma_map_lock;
> > > CoQueue dma_flush_queue;
> > > @@ -463,6 +464,7 @@ static void nvme_identify(BlockDriverState *bs, int
> > > namespace, Error **errp)
> > >
> > > oncs = le16_to_cpu(idctrl->oncs);
> > > s->supports_write_zeros = (oncs & NVME_ONCS_WRITE_ZEROS) != 0;
> > > + s->supports_discard = (oncs & NVME_ONCS_DSM) != 0;
> >
> > Same comment -- checking !!(register & FIELD) is nicer than the
> > negative. (I'm actually not sure even the !! is needed, but it seems to
> > be a QEMU-ism and I've caught myself using it...)
>
> All right, no problem to use !!
>
> >
> > Rest looks good to me on a skim, but I'm not very well-versed in NVME.
>
> Thanks!
>
Kind ping about this patch series.
Apart from using !!, do you think that this patch series
can be merged, or should I do anything else?
Which tree do you think this should be committed to?
I kind of want to see that merged before the freeze
starts, if there are no objections,
to reduce the amount of pending stuff in my queue.
[...]
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
