On 10 Apr 2016, at 00:17, Eric Blake wrote:
> No, the code is correct. In both functions, the logic is that if the
> lower-level knows that the server respects FUA, then it clears the flag
> before returning (flags is passed by reference, not value). Then at
> this higher
On 04/09/2016 04:57 AM, Alex Bligh wrote:
>
> On 8 Apr 2016, at 23:05, Eric Blake wrote:
>
>> RFC because there is still discussion on the NBD list about
>> adding an NBD_OPT_ to let the client suggest server defaults
>> related to scanning for zeroes during NBD_CMD_WRITE,
On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 11:57:57AM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote:
>
> On 8 Apr 2016, at 23:05, Eric Blake wrote:
>
> > RFC because there is still discussion on the NBD list about
> > adding an NBD_OPT_ to let the client suggest server defaults
> > related to scanning for zeroes
On 8 Apr 2016, at 23:05, Eric Blake wrote:
> RFC because there is still discussion on the NBD list about
> adding an NBD_OPT_ to let the client suggest server defaults
> related to scanning for zeroes during NBD_CMD_WRITE, which may
> tweak this patch.
>
> Upstream NBD
RFC because there is still discussion on the NBD list about
adding an NBD_OPT_ to let the client suggest server defaults
related to scanning for zeroes during NBD_CMD_WRITE, which may
tweak this patch.
Upstream NBD protocol recently added the ability to efficiently
write zeroes without having to