On 12/06/2016 03:31 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
>>>
>>> The only alternative I can come up with would be "qcow2_write_zeroes";
>>> that at least solves the first issue I have with this, but not the
>>> second one...
>>
>> Maybe qcow2_cluster_zeroize() and qcow2_cluster_discard()?
>
> I think
On 06.12.2016 22:26, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 12/06/2016 03:01 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 03.12.2016 19:19, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> Passing a byte offset, but sector count, when we ultimately
>>> want to operate on cluster granularity, is madness. Clean up
>>> the interfaces to take byte offset and
On 12/06/2016 03:01 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 03.12.2016 19:19, Eric Blake wrote:
>> Passing a byte offset, but sector count, when we ultimately
>> want to operate on cluster granularity, is madness. Clean up
>> the interfaces to take byte offset and count. Rename
>> qcow2_discard_clusters() and
On 03.12.2016 19:19, Eric Blake wrote:
> Passing a byte offset, but sector count, when we ultimately
> want to operate on cluster granularity, is madness. Clean up
> the interfaces to take byte offset and count. Rename
> qcow2_discard_clusters() and qcow2_zero_clusters() to the
> shorter
Passing a byte offset, but sector count, when we ultimately
want to operate on cluster granularity, is madness. Clean up
the interfaces to take byte offset and count. Rename
qcow2_discard_clusters() and qcow2_zero_clusters() to the
shorter qcow2_discard() and qcow2_zero() to make sure backports
