On 02/21/22 15:32, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 03:19:23PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 02/21/22 11:22, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 10:22:04AM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> +/* Block size constraints. */
> +static int
>
On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 08:49:08PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Because these filters perform a read-modify-write cycle for requests
> which are smaller than the block size of the filter, we can adjust or
> set the preferred block size to the block size of the filter or the
> preferred block
On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 03:19:23PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 02/21/22 11:22, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 10:22:04AM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> >>> +/* Block size constraints. */
> >>> +static int
> >>> +cache_block_size (nbdkit_next *next, void *handle,
> >>> +
On 02/21/22 11:22, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 10:22:04AM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>> +/* Block size constraints. */
>>> +static int
>>> +cache_block_size (nbdkit_next *next, void *handle,
>>> + uint32_t *minimum, uint32_t *preferred, uint32_t
>>>
On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 10:22:04AM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> > +/* Block size constraints. */
> > +static int
> > +cache_block_size (nbdkit_next *next, void *handle,
> > + uint32_t *minimum, uint32_t *preferred, uint32_t
> > *maximum)
> > +{
> > + if (next->block_size (next,
On 02/20/22 21:49, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Because these filters perform a read-modify-write cycle for requests
> which are smaller than the block size of the filter, we can adjust or
> set the preferred block size to the block size of the filter or the
> preferred block size of the underlying
Because these filters perform a read-modify-write cycle for requests
which are smaller than the block size of the filter, we can adjust or
set the preferred block size to the block size of the filter or the
preferred block size of the underlying plugin, whichever is larger.
We're careful not to
