Comment 11 for bug 1974100

@Brent - Let me know if your data and/or lsblk/dump2fs look vastly different?

I pondered if I should call this "a feature request to an old attachment type" which is unlikely
to get much attention. But the only stomach-ache that I have with this (and this is why I do not close this) is that it has announced discard to the guest - which if not working it should not.

But I haven't had the time to track down where/if this is lost. For many other performance/feature reasons using a newer attachment type is already strongly encouraged, thereby I'm not sure how much it is worth to spend much more time here (interesting it is, but worth the time?).

Others can please chime in here if many people think tracing this down is super-important.