On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 09:10:43PM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
Am 18.10.2013 um 15:50 schrieb Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com:
Il 18/10/2013 15:26, Peter Lieven ha scritto:
- bdrv_discard_zeroes for bdrv_has_discard_write_zeroes
This would conform to the linux ioctl
Hi Stefan, please have a Look at v7 of this series. Hopefully the final one.
Thx,
Am 30.10.2013 um 09:28 schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi stefa...@redhat.com:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 09:10:43PM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
Am 18.10.2013 um 15:50 schrieb Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com:
Il
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 01:58:08PM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
this patch does 2 things:
a) only do additional call outs if BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO is not already set.
b) use the newly introduced bdrv_has_discard_zeroes() to return the
zero state of an unallocated block. the used callout to
Il 18/10/2013 14:38, Stefan Hajnoczi ha scritto:
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 01:58:08PM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
this patch does 2 things:
a) only do additional call outs if BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO is not already set.
b) use the newly introduced bdrv_has_discard_zeroes() to return the
zero state of
On 18.10.2013 14:38, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 01:58:08PM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
this patch does 2 things:
a) only do additional call outs if BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO is not already set.
b) use the newly introduced bdrv_has_discard_zeroes() to return the
zero state of an
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 02:49:11PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 18/10/2013 14:38, Stefan Hajnoczi ha scritto:
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 01:58:08PM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
this patch does 2 things:
a) only do additional call outs if BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO is not already set.
b) use the newly
On 18.10.2013 14:49, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 18/10/2013 14:38, Stefan Hajnoczi ha scritto:
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 01:58:08PM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
this patch does 2 things:
a) only do additional call outs if BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO is not already set.
b) use the newly introduced
Il 18/10/2013 15:26, Peter Lieven ha scritto:
- bdrv_discard_zeroes for bdrv_has_discard_write_zeroes
This would conform to the linux ioctl BLKDISCARDZEROES.
However, we need the write_zeroes operation for a guarantee
that zeroes are return.
Yes. I'm fine with the current names actually,
On 18.10.2013 15:24, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 02:49:11PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 18/10/2013 14:38, Stefan Hajnoczi ha scritto:
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 01:58:08PM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
this patch does 2 things:
a) only do additional call outs if
Il 18/10/2013 15:52, Peter Lieven ha scritto:
Regarding putting this info into the BDI I am fine with that, but I
would keep the wrapper functions.
On the other hand, bdrv_has_zero_init is also not in the BDI... I had it
in the BDI and got the request
to move it to separate functions. To
Am 18.10.2013 um 15:50 schrieb Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com:
Il 18/10/2013 15:26, Peter Lieven ha scritto:
- bdrv_discard_zeroes for bdrv_has_discard_write_zeroes
This would conform to the linux ioctl BLKDISCARDZEROES.
However, we need the write_zeroes operation for a guarantee
this patch does 2 things:
a) only do additional call outs if BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO is not already set.
b) use the newly introduced bdrv_has_discard_zeroes() to return the
zero state of an unallocated block. the used callout to
bdrv_has_zero_init() is only valid right after bdrv_create.
12 matches
Mail list logo
