On 03/24/2016 09:53 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 04:33:42PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 24/03/2016 16:25, Eric Blake wrote:
>>>> However, let's make these bits, so that
>>>>
>>>> NBD_STATE_ALLOCATED (0x1), LBA extent is present on the block device
>>>> NBD_STATE_ZERO (0x2), LBA extent will read as zeroes
>>>
>>> Should we flip the sense and call this NBD_STATE_UNALLOCATED (0 means
>>> allocated, 1 means not present), so that an overall status of 0 is a
>>> safe default?
>>
>> Double negations are evil (and don't work the same in all languages), so
>> I think it's a worse option.
> 
> I agree that a bit which says "unallocated" is confusing in that manner,
> but that just means we need a better name (one that doesn't contain
> "un-" or "not")
> 
> I like the idea of having zero be the "sensible" default, although I'm
> quite unable to come up with a better name myself.

NBD_STATE_TRIM, perhaps? (0 for present, 1 for trimmed or unallocated);
matches well that we have NBD_CMD_TRIM for requesting the creation of
such a state.

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org