Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v12 02/10] block: Update comments on BDRV_BLOCK_* meanings

2017-05-05 Thread Max Reitz
On 05.05.2017 22:13, Eric Blake wrote: > On 05/05/2017 03:06 PM, Max Reitz wrote: >> On 04.05.2017 05:07, Eric Blake wrote: >>> We had some conflicting documentation: a nice 8-way table that >>> described all possible combinations of DATA, ZERO, and >>> OFFSET_VALID, contrasted with text that impli

Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v12 02/10] block: Update comments on BDRV_BLOCK_* meanings

2017-05-05 Thread Eric Blake
On 05/05/2017 03:06 PM, Max Reitz wrote: > On 04.05.2017 05:07, Eric Blake wrote: >> We had some conflicting documentation: a nice 8-way table that >> described all possible combinations of DATA, ZERO, and >> OFFSET_VALID, contrasted with text that implied that OFFSET_VALID >> always meant raw data

Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v12 02/10] block: Update comments on BDRV_BLOCK_* meanings

2017-05-05 Thread Max Reitz
On 04.05.2017 05:07, Eric Blake wrote: > We had some conflicting documentation: a nice 8-way table that > described all possible combinations of DATA, ZERO, and > OFFSET_VALID, contrasted with text that implied that OFFSET_VALID > always meant raw data could be read directly. Furthermore, the > te

[Qemu-block] [PATCH v12 02/10] block: Update comments on BDRV_BLOCK_* meanings

2017-05-03 Thread Eric Blake
We had some conflicting documentation: a nice 8-way table that described all possible combinations of DATA, ZERO, and OFFSET_VALID, contrasted with text that implied that OFFSET_VALID always meant raw data could be read directly. Furthermore, the text refers a lot to bs->file, even though the inte