[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Nbd] More efficient treatment of experimental protocol extensions



On 04/14/2016 10:38 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 05:16:28PM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote:
>> Wouter,
>>
>> On 14 Apr 2016, at 16:38, Wouter Verhelst <w@...112...> wrote:
>>> This sounds like a viable approach,
>>
>> I propose I come up with a patch to move the current experimental
>> stuff out to a branch then.
>>
>> As Erik currently is performing open heart surgery on NBD_OPT_INFO
> 
> Eric ;-)
> 
>> I'll leave it until the patient is in recovery before doing that one.
>>
>> Structured replies is (famous last words) already in that state.

Stable, but not out of observation yet (while I _have_ done scratch
implementations of INFO and WRITE_ZEROES in qemu, STRUCTURED_REPLY is
turning out to require a lot more effort).

> 
> Yeah, I think so too.
> 
>> I haven't paid much attention to WRITE_ZEROES but I think that's
>> relatively stable too. I'm guessing if we had a server side implementation
>> of that we could promote it.
> 
> There seems to be some discussion going on there still. I'm not sure.

Close, but there's still the idea of adding an NBD_OPT_ to let the
client control whether the server may/must not scan for zeroes during
large NBD_CMD_WRITE, to give the client a bit more in-band control over
whether the destination file will be sparse (right now, qemu has to set
that up via out-of-band means).


>>> Consider yourself a committer ;-)
>>
>> Thanks for that!
> 
> You're welcome. Just don't abuse it ;-)

I add my congratulations. And I'm glad that I'm not quite to that point
yet 8)

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: