On 13/01/14 13:16, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 13.01.14 at 14:00, Ian Campbell <ian.campb...@citrix.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 12:34 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 13.01.14 at 13:01, Olaf Hering <o...@aepfle.de> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Jan 13, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> >>>>> You can't do this in one go - the first two and the last one may be >>>>> set independently (and are independent in their meaning), and >>>>> hence need to be queried independently (xenbus_gather() fails >>>>> on the first absent value). >>>> >>>> Yes, thats the purpose. Since the properties are required its an all or >>>> nothing thing. If they are truly optional then blkif.h should be updated >>>> to say that. >>> >>> They _are_ optional. >> >> But is it true that either they are all present or they are all absent? > > No, it's not. discard-secure is independent of the other two (but > those other two are tied together).
Can we have a patch to blkif.h that clarifies this? e.g., feature-discard ... discard-granularity and discard-offset must also be present if feature-discard is enabled discard-secure may also be present if feature-discard is enabled. David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
