On Tue, 4 Feb 2014, Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 04, Olaf Hering wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 04, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >
> > > Now you call bdrv_acct_done() in the callback without having a matching
> > > bdrv_acct_start(). You need to make it conditional in the callback.
>
> > Stefano,
> > Is io
Am 04.02.2014 um 16:47 hat Olaf Hering geschrieben:
> On Mon, Feb 03, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>
> > Am 30.01.2014 um 16:02 hat Olaf Hering geschrieben:
> > > +++ b/hw/block/xen_disk.c
>
> > > +case BLKIF_OP_DISCARD:
> > > +{
> > > +struct blkif_request_discard *discard_req = (void *)&io
On Tue, Feb 04, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Now you call bdrv_acct_done() in the callback without having a matching
> bdrv_acct_start(). You need to make it conditional in the callback.
I see.
Stefano,
Is ioreq_runio_qemu_aio symetric in this regard anyway? In case of
BLKIF_OP_WRITE|BLKIF_OP_FLUSH_DISKC
On Mon, Feb 03, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 30.01.2014 um 16:02 hat Olaf Hering geschrieben:
> > +++ b/hw/block/xen_disk.c
> > +case BLKIF_OP_DISCARD:
> > +{
> > +struct blkif_request_discard *discard_req = (void *)&ioreq->req;
> > +bdrv_acct_start(blkdev->bs, &ioreq->acct,
> >
On Tue, Feb 04, Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 04, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>
> > Now you call bdrv_acct_done() in the callback without having a matching
> > bdrv_acct_start(). You need to make it conditional in the callback.
> Stefano,
> Is ioreq_runio_qemu_aio symetric in this regard anyway? In cas
On Tue, 4 Feb 2014, Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>
> > Am 30.01.2014 um 16:02 hat Olaf Hering geschrieben:
> > > +++ b/hw/block/xen_disk.c
>
> > > +case BLKIF_OP_DISCARD:
> > > +{
> > > +struct blkif_request_discard *discard_req = (void *)&ioreq->req;
> >
On Mon, Feb 03, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 30.01.2014 um 16:02 hat Olaf Hering geschrieben:
> > +case BLKIF_OP_DISCARD:
> > +{
> > +struct blkif_request_discard *discard_req = (void *)&ioreq->req;
> > +bdrv_acct_start(blkdev->bs, &ioreq->acct,
> > +disca
Am 03.02.2014 um 17:03 hat Olaf Hering geschrieben:
> On Mon, Feb 03, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>
> > Am 30.01.2014 um 16:02 hat Olaf Hering geschrieben:
> > > +case BLKIF_OP_DISCARD:
> > > +{
> > > +struct blkif_request_discard *discard_req = (void *)&ioreq->req;
> > > +bdrv_acct_
Il 03/02/2014 16:49, Kevin Wolf ha scritto:
Neither SCSI nor IDE account for discards. I think we should keep the
behaviour consistent across devices.
If we do want to introduce accounting for discards, I'm not sure whether
counting them as writes or giving them their own category makes more
sen
Am 30.01.2014 um 16:02 hat Olaf Hering geschrieben:
> Implement discard support for xen_disk. It makes use of the existing
> discard code in qemu.
>
> The discard support is enabled unconditionally. The tool stack may provide a
> property "discard-enable" in the backend node to optionally disable
Implement discard support for xen_disk. It makes use of the existing
discard code in qemu.
The discard support is enabled unconditionally. The tool stack may provide a
property "discard-enable" in the backend node to optionally disable discard
support. This is helpful in case the backing file was
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Olaf Hering wrote:
> Implement discard support for xen_disk. It makes use of the existing
> discard code in qemu.
>
> The discard support is enabled unconditionally. The tool stack may provide a
> property "discard-enable" in the backend node to optionally disable discard
> su
12 matches
Mail list logo
