From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Li Dongyang Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/3] xen-blkfront/xen-blkback trim support Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:41:00 +0800 Message-ID: References: <1314177825-22360-1-git-send-email-lidongyang@novell.com> <20110826165658.GA2343@dumpdata.com> <20110829153132.GA11489@dumpdata.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110829153132.GA11489@dumpdata.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, owen.smith@citrix.com, JBeulich@novell.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 03:50:28PM +0800, Li Dongyang wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk >> wrote: >> > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 05:23:42PM +0800, Li Dongyang wrote: >> >> Dear list, >> >> this is the V3 of the trim support for xen-blkfront/blkback, >> >> thanks for all your reviews. >> >> and when I looked back at Owen's patch in Dec 2010, >> >> http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2010-12/msg00299.html >> >> this patch above also add the trim union to blkif_x86_{32|64}_request, >> >> and take care of trim request in blkif_get_x86{32|64}_req(), >> >> however, in the later versions, the part is just gone. I wonder if it is >> >> needed here? Thanks. >> > >> > Are you referring to git commit 51de69523ffe1c17994dc2f260369f29dfdce71c >> > xen: Union the blkif_request request specific fields >> that's the patch merged, the link I gave above was the previous >> version cooked up by >> Owen, and the patch in the link has changes to struct >> blkif_x86_{32|64}_request related stuffs, >> but that;s gone in the merged version, so I'm not sure if the gone >> part is needed here, Thanks > > Well, I presume that you tested this patchset you are posting. If it > works properly (and you do see the discard operations in dom0) then > you do not need the extra parts. sorry forgot to mention that the patch has been tested on a x86-64 host, with both 32bit and 64bit guests, and it won't work for 32bit guests without this part. gonna post a V4. > > You are testing this patchset on SSDs, right? I only tested on file backend cause I don't have handy SSD right now, and the disk space of the image did reduce if we discard in the guest, Thanks >