From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40916) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VXARZ-00072e-0J for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:50:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VXARQ-0000ro-JI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:50:20 -0400 Received: from mail-ee0-x233.google.com ([2a00:1450:4013:c00::233]:35517) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VXARQ-0000ri-BW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:50:12 -0400 Received: by mail-ee0-f51.google.com with SMTP id c1so2033323eek.10 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 06:50:11 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <52613C8D.5060708@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 15:50:05 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1381233491-17019-1-git-send-email-pl@kamp.de> <1381233491-17019-15-git-send-email-pl@kamp.de> <20131018123812.GB19041@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> <52612E47.9050004@redhat.com> <52613709.6040604@kamp.de> In-Reply-To: <52613709.6040604@kamp.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv4 14/17] block/get_block_status: fix BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO for unallocated blocks List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Lieven Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, ronniesahlberg@gmail.com, Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com, anthony@codemonkey.ws 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, just thinking loudly. >> - bdrv_unallocated_blocks_are_zero for bdrv_has_discard_zeroes >> >> But I'm not sure why we have different BlockDriver APIs. I'd rather put >> the new flags in BlockDriverInfo, and make the new functions simple >> wrappers around bdrv_get_info. I think I proposed that before, maybe I >> wasn't clear or I was misunderstood. > I think Kevin wanted to have special functions for this. Yes, but I think he referred to block.c functions not BlockDriver functions. Paolo