On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 6:44 AM Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 11:06:19AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 at 10:53, Peter-Jan Gootzen wrote:
> >
> > > We also considered this idea, it would kind of be like locking FUSE into
> > > being x86. However I think t
ested \field{data} is not an integer multiple of the device's
> +\field{blk_size}, when the VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE feature has been offered by
> +the device.
> +
> The device MUST set the \field{status} byte to VIRTIO_BLK_S_UNSUPP for
> discard, secure erase and write zeroes commands
On Sun, Oct 6, 2024 at 4:36 AM Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>
>
> On 03/10/2024 2:56, Daniel Verkamp wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 6:45 PM Daniel Verkamp
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 4:42 PM Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> I'm cur
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 8:05 AM Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>
> This field is only valid when the VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE feature bit is
> set.
>
> The blk_size field represents the smallest addressable unit of data that
> can be read from or written to the device. It is always a power of two
> and typicall
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 4:42 PM Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On 25/09/2024 23:57, Daniel Verkamp wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 8:05 AM Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>>
>> This field is only valid when the VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE feature bit is
>> se
[side note: I thought I subscribed to the virtio-dev list previously,
but the confirmation got lost in the spam filter initially, should be
fixed now]
On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 5:22 PM Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>
>
> On 27/09/2024 0:44, Daniel Verkamp wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2024
On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 6:45 PM Daniel Verkamp wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 4:42 PM Max Gurtovoy wrote:
[...]
> > I'm curious if you've encountered any actual implementations where
> > drivers send non-block-size-aligned requests to block devices. I never
> >
