From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56521) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bz2qX-00066u-Kj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:36:58 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bz2qW-0000Ew-Rz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:36:57 -0400 References: <1469129688-22848-1-git-send-email-eblake@redhat.com> <1469129688-22848-5-git-send-email-eblake@redhat.com> <20160727072543.GF23258@ad.usersys.redhat.com> <5799704D.9060408@redhat.com> <18c31752-8399-1763-a42e-c2b924920b55@redhat.com> <12c8e895-f8ab-825f-82e7-4a2c8cc22de5@kamp.de> <9078195b-160a-e18f-b8ef-c9f2ba712416@redhat.com> <4cd56bb4-fa0d-493c-18b1-4cec0467a6bf@kamp.de> <567caf97-24bd-b5e6-a999-405ef01b2c21@redhat.com> <78e7e5d9-4f43-c50d-4531-de5c1a0e1a83@kamp.de> <25f42457-369e-152e-edce-44a4835c6c68@redhat.com> <3a8e046e-7a31-bdff-4dcc-7b3d42ab00a2@redhat.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 16:36:33 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3a8e046e-7a31-bdff-4dcc-7b3d42ab00a2@redhat.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5SsuMb4PL9bEPnKPnt4hteGCegl5XeaQF" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/4] block: Cater to iscsi with non-power-of-2 discard List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake , Peter Lieven , Fam Zheng Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , Kevin Wolf , Max Reitz This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --5SsuMb4PL9bEPnKPnt4hteGCegl5XeaQF From: Paolo Bonzini To: Eric Blake , Peter Lieven , Fam Zheng Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , Kevin Wolf , Max Reitz Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] block: Cater to iscsi with non-power-of-2 discard References: <1469129688-22848-1-git-send-email-eblake@redhat.com> <1469129688-22848-5-git-send-email-eblake@redhat.com> <20160727072543.GF23258@ad.usersys.redhat.com> <5799704D.9060408@redhat.com> <18c31752-8399-1763-a42e-c2b924920b55@redhat.com> <12c8e895-f8ab-825f-82e7-4a2c8cc22de5@kamp.de> <9078195b-160a-e18f-b8ef-c9f2ba712416@redhat.com> <4cd56bb4-fa0d-493c-18b1-4cec0467a6bf@kamp.de> <567caf97-24bd-b5e6-a999-405ef01b2c21@redhat.com> <78e7e5d9-4f43-c50d-4531-de5c1a0e1a83@kamp.de> <25f42457-369e-152e-edce-44a4835c6c68@redhat.com> <3a8e046e-7a31-bdff-4dcc-7b3d42ab00a2@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <3a8e046e-7a31-bdff-4dcc-7b3d42ab00a2@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 25/10/2016 16:35, Eric Blake wrote: > So your argument is that we should always pass down every unaligned > less-than-optimum discard request all the way to the hardware, rather > than dropping it higher in the stack, even though discard requests are > already advisory, in order to leave the hardware as the ultimate > decision on whether to ignore the unaligned request? Yes, I agree with Peter as to this. Paolo --5SsuMb4PL9bEPnKPnt4hteGCegl5XeaQF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJYD23xAAoJEL/70l94x66DPxkH/19p1F4BVRnh1g3LUc5hRu3k 6lVzbNJNz2lIaUTa/UD2XrIkw+5LmH8oglRlNbuimqg0srDtCsqPeQol00Gshvta KWdjpyZuM5KvZejVjYIjnVHA1UElqfzPtLqzeuOgGYyw5XkVM3ulvquYBNbLOYeU SA9wNyrTh2K8Zf6QGZaPSIQJLPzps+pIbmokp4JJnppQAuHFaDEB9sgcBqGPXnUS grSs1AA/zX6GrCRlVLlpjU+Ni4SWwz6WxXhpz2VN21RlzSGbWhZCSHIRAywoi0LN zkK1jX+0vcxSKwzcuph3+slRdvcZbVItKD5giBN0GIrFQDeGmYGtlXiU8VPG++I= =Qt/H -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --5SsuMb4PL9bEPnKPnt4hteGCegl5XeaQF--