From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47590) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UzV9N-0001Lj-0e for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:04:26 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UzV9L-00034A-6B for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:04:24 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:48595) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UzV9K-00033j-UM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:04:23 -0400 Message-ID: <51E6CE81.6000400@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 19:04:01 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1373885375-13601-1-git-send-email-pl@kamp.de> <1373885375-13601-5-git-send-email-pl@kamp.de> <20130717084648.GD2458@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> <51E66ACD.70706@redhat.com> <20130717102551.GF2458@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> <51E6C5FC.1030304@redhat.com> <7C1EEB41-E2B3-4186-9188-379F02E76FF9@kamp.de> In-Reply-To: <7C1EEB41-E2B3-4186-9188-379F02E76FF9@kamp.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/4] qemu-img: conditionally discard target on convert List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Lieven Cc: Kevin Wolf , Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-devel , ronnie sahlberg Il 17/07/2013 19:02, Peter Lieven ha scritto: > For Disks we always use read/write16 so i think we Should also use writesame16. Or not? Yes. Remember you can still use UNMAP if LBPRZ=0. Paolo > Von meinem iPhone gesendet > > Am 17.07.2013 um 18:31 schrieb ronnie sahlberg : > >> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> Il 17/07/2013 17:54, ronnie sahlberg ha scritto: >>>> I think it is reasonable to assume that IF LBPRZ==1 and IF it is an >>>> "optimal unmap request" then the blocks will become unmapped and they >>>> will read back as 0. >>> >>> Yes, but it is not reasonable to assume that bdrv_discard will only >>> receive "optimal" requests. Thus, using WRITE SAME for LBPRZ=1, and not >>> exposing LBPRZ=1 if LBPWS=0 (may also use LBPWS10 depending on the >>> capacity), is the safer thing to do. >>> >>> Paolo >> >> ACK. >> >> WRITESAME10/16 with UNMAP flag set is probably best.