From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49371)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1aj4RA-0004wJ-DC
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 08:32:29 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1aj4R6-00025R-9u
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 08:32:28 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:52013)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1aj4R6-00024p-4X
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 08:32:24 -0400
References: <1458742562-30624-1-git-send-email-den@openvz.org>
	<1458742562-30624-3-git-send-email-den@openvz.org>
	<20160323175834.GC2467@grep.be> <20160324084318.GC24831@phobos.sw.ru>
	<20160324093315.GA2870@grep.be>
	<433C735B-1BAE-47DA-9543-2E5BA2710357@alex.org.uk>
	<56F3D664.9010700@redhat.com>
	<6045D693-ADB5-4031-852B-CD9FA9BA8156@alex.org.uk>
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <56F3DE52.7060502@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 13:32:18 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6045D693-ADB5-4031-852B-CD9FA9BA8156@alex.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Nbd] [PATCH 2/2] NBD proto: add GET_LBA_STATUS
	extension
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: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Cc: "nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net" <nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net>, Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Pavel Borzenkov <pborzenkov@virtuozzo.com>, "Stefan stefanha@redhat. com" <stefanha@redhat.com>, "Denis V. Lunev" <den@openvz.org>, Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be>



On 24/03/2016 13:17, Alex Bligh wrote:
>>> >> * unallocated
>>> >> * zero
>>> >> * non-zero
>>> >> 
>>> >> So the possible replies are a bitfield of those, with a '1' if it 'might'
>>> >> be in that state, i.e.
>>> >> 
>>> >> 111 = no idea
>>> >> 110 = might be zero or unallocated, but isn't zero
>>> >> 011 = I know it's allocated, but I don't know whether it is zero or not
>> > 
>> > How do you represent "definitely unallocated?"
> 100 is definitely allocated. The first '1' says it 'might' be in allocated state,
> but as we know it's NOT in any of the other states (next two zeroes), by a
> process of elimination, it's definitely unallocated. Similarly 010 and 001
> are the two other 'definite' states.

An unallocated block can still be definitely zero.

Paolo