Re: [PATCH] blkif: reconcile protocol specification with in-use implementations

2024-09-10 Thread Roger Pau Monné
On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 01:25:46PM +, Anthony PERARD wrote: > On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 04:19:23PM +0200, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > > Current blkif implementations (both backends and frontends) have all slight > > differences about how they handle the 'sector-size' xenstore node, and how > > other

Re: [PATCH] blkif: reconcile protocol specification with in-use implementations

2024-09-04 Thread Anthony PERARD
On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 04:19:23PM +0200, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > Current blkif implementations (both backends and frontends) have all slight > differences about how they handle the 'sector-size' xenstore node, and how > other fields are derived from this value or hardcoded to be expressed in unit

Re: [PATCH] blkif: reconcile protocol specification with in-use implementations

2024-09-04 Thread Roger Pau Monné
On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 09:35:40AM +, Anthony PERARD wrote: > On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 11:11:51AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 09:39:17AM +0100, Paul Durrant wrote: > > > On 04/09/2024 09:21, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > > > > In the absence of that I'm afraid it is a

Re: [PATCH] blkif: reconcile protocol specification with in-use implementations

2024-09-04 Thread Roger Pau Monné
On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 11:31:08AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 04.09.2024 10:21, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 04:36:37PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> On 03.09.2024 16:19, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > >>> Current blkif implementations (both backends and frontends) have all >

Re: [PATCH] blkif: reconcile protocol specification with in-use implementations

2024-09-04 Thread Anthony PERARD
On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 11:11:51AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 09:39:17AM +0100, Paul Durrant wrote: > > On 04/09/2024 09:21, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > > > In the absence of that I'm afraid it is a little harder to > > > > judge whether the proposal here is the best we

Re: [PATCH] blkif: reconcile protocol specification with in-use implementations

2024-09-04 Thread Jan Beulich
On 04.09.2024 10:21, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 04:36:37PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 03.09.2024 16:19, Roger Pau Monne wrote: >>> Current blkif implementations (both backends and frontends) have all slight >>> differences about how they handle the 'sector-size' xenstore

Re: [PATCH] blkif: reconcile protocol specification with in-use implementations

2024-09-04 Thread Roger Pau Monné
On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 09:39:17AM +0100, Paul Durrant wrote: > On 04/09/2024 09:21, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > > In the absence of that I'm afraid it is a little harder to > > > judge whether the proposal here is the best we can do at this point. > > > > While I don't mind looking at what we can

Re: [PATCH] blkif: reconcile protocol specification with in-use implementations

2024-09-04 Thread Paul Durrant
On 04/09/2024 09:21, Roger Pau Monné wrote: In the absence of that I'm afraid it is a little harder to judge whether the proposal here is the best we can do at this point. While I don't mind looking at what we can do to better handle 4K sector disks, we need IMO to revert to the specification b

Re: [PATCH] blkif: reconcile protocol specification with in-use implementations

2024-09-04 Thread Roger Pau Monné
On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 04:36:37PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 03.09.2024 16:19, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > > Current blkif implementations (both backends and frontends) have all slight > > differences about how they handle the 'sector-size' xenstore node, and how > > other fields are derived from

Re: [PATCH] blkif: reconcile protocol specification with in-use implementations

2024-09-03 Thread Jan Beulich
On 03.09.2024 16:19, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > Current blkif implementations (both backends and frontends) have all slight > differences about how they handle the 'sector-size' xenstore node, and how > other fields are derived from this value or hardcoded to be expressed in units > of 512 bytes. >

[PATCH] blkif: reconcile protocol specification with in-use implementations

2024-09-03 Thread Roger Pau Monne
Current blkif implementations (both backends and frontends) have all slight differences about how they handle the 'sector-size' xenstore node, and how other fields are derived from this value or hardcoded to be expressed in units of 512 bytes. To give some context, this is an excerpt of how differ