Re: [Qemu-block] [Nbd] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] nbd: fix trim/discard commands with a length bigger than NBD_MAX_BUFFER_SIZE

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 05:54:44PM +0200, Quentin Casasnovas wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 09:46:36AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > > On 05/10/2016 09:41 AM, Alex Bligh wrote: > > > > > > On 10 May 2016, at 16:29, Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote: > > &

Re: [Qemu-block] [Nbd] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] nbd: fix trim/discard commands with a length bigger than NBD_MAX_BUFFER_SIZE

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 04:49:57PM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote: > > On 10 May 2016, at 16:45, Quentin Casasnovas <quentin.casasno...@oracle.com> > wrote: > > > I'm by no mean an expert in this, but why would the kernel break up those > > TRIM commands? After all,

Re: [Qemu-block] [Nbd] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] nbd: fix trim/discard commands with a length bigger than NBD_MAX_BUFFER_SIZE

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 09:46:36AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 05/10/2016 09:41 AM, Alex Bligh wrote: > > > > On 10 May 2016, at 16:29, Eric Blake wrote: > > > >> So the kernel is currently one of the clients that does NOT honor block > >> sizes, and as such, servers should

Re: [Qemu-block] [Nbd] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] nbd: fix trim/discard commands with a length bigger than NBD_MAX_BUFFER_SIZE

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 04:38:29PM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote: > Eric, > > On 10 May 2016, at 16:29, Eric Blake wrote: > >>> Maybe we should revisit that in the spec, and/or advertise yet another > >>> block size (since the maximum size for a trim and/or write_zeroes > >>>