On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 01:56:50PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> I've applied the patch to the block branch. This is something for 0.13,
> too, I suppose?
Yes, I think so. It's easy enough and the broken guest already are in
the wild.
Am 23.07.2010 13:30, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:50:12PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> This isn't reverting to the state before we reported anything, but it
>> reports values of 0 now. Is this defined for both virtio-blk and SCSI to
>> mean the same as no report at all? Or
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:50:12PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> This isn't reverting to the state before we reported anything, but it
> reports values of 0 now. Is this defined for both virtio-blk and SCSI to
> mean the same as no report at all? Or should we rather not advertise
> VIRTIO_BLK_F_TOPOLO
Am 23.07.2010 09:35, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
> Currently we set them to 512 bytes unless manually specified. Unforuntaly
> some brain-dead partitioning tools create unaligned partitions if they
> get low enough optiomal I/O size values, so don't report any at all
> unless explicitly set.
>
> S
Currently we set them to 512 bytes unless manually specified. Unforuntaly
some brain-dead partitioning tools create unaligned partitions if they
get low enough optiomal I/O size values, so don't report any at all
unless explicitly set.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig
Index: qemu/block_int.h
==
