From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Wolf Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen_disk: remove syncwrite option Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:00:45 +0200 Message-ID: <4F9695ED.8010402@redhat.com> References: <1335266521-20875-1-git-send-email-stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> <4F969080.9000801@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Stefano Stabellini Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Am 24.04.2012 13:55, schrieb Stefano Stabellini: > On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> Am 24.04.2012 13:22, schrieb Stefano Stabellini: >>> Use the BDRV_O_CACHE_* flags instead. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini >> >> Doesn't apply to qemu.git because... >> >>> --- >>> hw/xen_disk.c | 8 +------- >>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/hw/xen_disk.c b/hw/xen_disk.c >>> index 4a6d89c..3e4a47b 100644 >>> --- a/hw/xen_disk.c >>> +++ b/hw/xen_disk.c >>> @@ -48,7 +48,6 @@ >>> >>> /* ------------------------------------------------------------- */ >>> >>> -static int syncwrite = 0; >>> static int batch_maps = 0; >>> >>> static int max_requests = 32; >>> @@ -189,15 +188,10 @@ static int ioreq_parse(struct ioreq *ioreq) >>> ioreq->presync = 1; >>> return 0; >>> } >>> - if (!syncwrite) { >>> - ioreq->postsync = 1; >> >> ...this is ioreq->presync = ioreq->postsync = 1; > > That's because it is based on top of the following two patches: > > xen_disk: use bdrv_aio_flush instead of bdrv_flush > http://marc.info/?l=qemu-devel&m=133434258008959&w=2 > > xen_disk: implement BLKIF_OP_FLUSH_DISKCACHE, remove BLKIF_OP_WRITE_BARRIER > http://marc.info/?l=qemu-devel&m=133459581417878&w=2 > > I have just sent a pull request for them > (http://marc.info/?l=qemu-devel&m=133526669019403) after leaving lying > around for a while. > Next time do you want me to send xen_disk specific pull request to you > instead? Sorry if I shouldn't have sent the pull request directly... I see. I wasn't aware that you're doing pull requests, but it isn't a problem. It just means that you should probably do a pull request for this one as well instead of expecting that I pick it up. But you can have my Acked-by, if you like. Should I ignore xen_disk patches from now on for the block branch and assume that you pick them up? Kevin