On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 09:10:43PM +0200, Peter Lieven wrote: > > > > Am 18.10.2013 um 15:50 schrieb Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]>: > > > > 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. > > Ok, if Stefan and Kevin agree i will change it once more. I Would also like > some Feedback on the new names for the functions and changed description. I > can send a respin next week then.
(Catching up with old mails) Fine here. Stefan
