From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752838Ab1JKIJk (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Oct 2011 04:09:40 -0400 Received: from smtp.eu.citrix.com ([62.200.22.115]:58544 "EHLO SMTP.EU.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750872Ab1JKIJh (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Oct 2011 04:09:37 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,522,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="8318635" Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/3] xen/blk[front|back]: Enhance discard support with secure erasing support. From: Ian Campbell To: Jan Beulich CC: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , "hch@infradead.org" , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Dong Yang Li , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:09:35 +0100 In-Reply-To: <4E940E21020000780005AA29@nat28.tlf.novell.com> References: <1318260494-27985-1-git-send-email-konrad.wilk@oracle.com> <1318260494-27985-4-git-send-email-konrad.wilk@oracle.com> <1318263187.21903.464.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <20111010164250.GG28646@phenom.oracle.com> <1318274402.27397.13.camel@dagon.hellion.org.uk> <20111010195749.GA5755@phenom.oracle.com> <4E940E21020000780005AA29@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Organization: Citrix Systems, Inc. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.0.3- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <1318320575.21903.490.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 08:36 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 10.10.11 at 21:57, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 08:20:02PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > >> On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 17:42 +0100, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > >> > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 05:13:07PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > >> > >> > > In any case it should also be posted against the canonical inter-guest > >> > > interface definition in the xen tree for review with that in mind. > >> > > >> > Yes! But I was thinking to first let this one rattle a bit and see what > >> > folks thought about it before submitting the xen-devel. > >> > >> It's a good idea to get ABI changes out for review before the > >> implementation rattles around so much that changing it becomes hard. > > > > OK, lets drop this until we get that straigthen out. I've posted > > http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2011-10/msg00642.html the > > changes to > > Xen ABI. > > Yeah, but that didn't get adjusted after IanC's comments (structure > alignment, BLKIF_OP_DISCARD_FLAG_SECURE value). > > Further I wonder why you don't use the "reserved" field instead of > extending the structure at the end. I hadn't noticed that field, yes using that would be preferable since it retains ABI compatibility. > > Jan >