On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:50:20PM +, Paul Brook wrote:
It's guest visible state, so it must not change due to migrations. For
the current implementation all values for it work anyway - if it's
smaller than the block size we'll zero out the remainder of the block.
That sounds wrong.
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:50:20PM +, Paul Brook wrote:
It's guest visible state, so it must not change due to migrations. For
the current implementation all values for it work anyway - if it's
smaller than the block size we'll zero out the remainder of the block.
That sounds
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 01:12:13PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
DEFINE_PROP_UINT16(physical_block_size, _state,
\
_conf.physical_block_size, 512),
\
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 01:12:13PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
DEFINE_PROP_UINT16(physical_block_size, _state, \
_conf.physical_block_size, 512), \
DEFINE_PROP_UINT16(min_io_size, _state, _conf.min_io_size, 0), \
-
Am 01.12.2010 16:35, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
Add a new bdrv_discard method to free blocks in a mapping image, and a new
drive property to set the granularity for these discard. If no discard
granularity support is set discard support is disabled.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig
Add a new bdrv_discard method to free blocks in a mapping image, and a new
drive property to set the granularity for these discard. If no discard
granularity support is set discard support is disabled.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de
Index: qemu/block.c
Add a new bdrv_discard method to free blocks in a mapping image, and a new
drive property to set the granularity for these discard. If no discard
granularity support is set discard support is disabled.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de
Index: qemu/block.c
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Add a new bdrv_discard method to free blocks in a mapping image, and a new
drive property to set the granularity for these discard. If no discard
granularity support is set discard support is disabled.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de wrote:
+int bdrv_discard(BlockDriverState *bs, int64_t sector_num, int nb_sectors)
+{
+ if (!bs-drv || !bs-drv-bdrv_discard)
+ return 0;
!bs-drv is normally -ENOMEDIUM. Perhaps we shouldn't lump it in with
