On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 05:09:14PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 03:40:26PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> > The two callers to a mirror job (drive-mirror and blockdev-mirror) set
> > zero_target precisely when sync mode == FULL, with the one exception
> > that drive-mirror skips z
On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 03:40:26PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> The two callers to a mirror job (drive-mirror and blockdev-mirror) set
> zero_target precisely when sync mode == FULL, with the one exception
> that drive-mirror skips zeroing the target if it was newly created and
> reads as zero. But
On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 03:40:26PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> The two callers to a mirror job (drive-mirror and blockdev-mirror) set
> zero_target precisely when sync mode == FULL, with the one exception
> that drive-mirror skips zeroing the target if it was newly created and
> reads as zero. But
On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 03:40:26PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> The two callers to a mirror job (drive-mirror and blockdev-mirror) set
> zero_target precisely when sync mode == FULL, with the one exception
> that drive-mirror skips zeroing the target if it was newly created and
> reads as zero. But
The two callers to a mirror job (drive-mirror and blockdev-mirror) set
zero_target precisely when sync mode == FULL, with the one exception
that drive-mirror skips zeroing the target if it was newly created and
reads as zero. But given the previous patch, that exception is
equally captured by targ
