Am 24.03.2016 um 17:04 hat Eric Blake geschrieben: > On 03/24/2016 09:53 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 04:33:42PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> On 24/03/2016 16:25, Eric Blake wrote: > >>>> However, let's make these bits, so that > >>>> > >>>> NBD_STATE_ALLOCATED (0x1), LBA extent is present on the block device > >>>> NBD_STATE_ZERO (0x2), LBA extent will read as zeroes > >>> > >>> Should we flip the sense and call this NBD_STATE_UNALLOCATED (0 means > >>> allocated, 1 means not present), so that an overall status of 0 is a > >>> safe default? > >> > >> Double negations are evil (and don't work the same in all languages), so > >> I think it's a worse option. > > > > I agree that a bit which says "unallocated" is confusing in that manner, > > but that just means we need a better name (one that doesn't contain > > "un-" or "not") > > > > I like the idea of having zero be the "sensible" default, although I'm > > quite unable to come up with a better name myself. > > NBD_STATE_TRIM, perhaps? (0 for present, 1 for trimmed or unallocated); > matches well that we have NBD_CMD_TRIM for requesting the creation of > such a state. How about NBD_STATE_HOLE? Kevin
Attachment:
pgpQMLqJyGno3.pgp
Description: PGP signature