From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46423)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1Uuimk-0004Tj-SP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Jul 2013 08:37:20 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1Uuimj-0005Rz-Nd
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Jul 2013 08:37:18 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47089)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1Uuimj-0005Ru-GO
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Jul 2013 08:37:17 -0400
Message-ID: <51D56C6C.60203@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 14:37:00 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1372338695-411-1-git-send-email-pl@kamp.de>
	<1372338695-411-3-git-send-email-pl@kamp.de>
	<CAN05THQSAi9cDmm_-rJUg+khgGDJ-8pYNAkBZGjVxkWBq_dkvQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<3E2D40D0-A2C9-4F40-A512-FC917FA13A14@kamp.de>
In-Reply-To: <3E2D40D0-A2C9-4F40-A512-FC917FA13A14@kamp.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv2 02/11] iscsi: read unmap info from block
 limits vpd page
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Lieven <pl@kamp.de>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, ronnie sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>

Il 03/07/2013 23:23, Peter Lieven ha scritto:
> BDC is not used. I had an implementation that sent multiple descriptors out, but
> at least for my storage the maximum unmap counts not for each descriptors, but for all
> together. So in this case we do not need the field at all. I forgot to remove it.
> 
> discard and write_zeroes will both only send one request up to max_unmap in size.
> 
> apropos write_zeroes: do you know if UNMAP is guaranteed to unmap data if lbprz == 1?

Yes.  On the other hand note that WRITE_SAME should be guaranteed _not_
to unmap if lbprz == 0 and you do WRITE_SAME with UNMAP and a zero
payload, but I suspect there may be buggy targets here.

> I have read in the specs something that the target might unmap the blocks or not touch them at all.
> Maybe you have more information.

That's even true of UNMAP itself, actually. :)

The storage can always "upgrade" a block from unmapped to anchored and
from anchored to allocated, so UNMAP can be a no-op and still comply
with the standard.

Paolo