From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] virtio-blk: add SGI_IO passthru support Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 16:28:00 +0200 Message-ID: <20090501142800.GA11427@lst.de> References: <20090427082606.GA32604@lst.de> <200904291237.21558.paul@codesourcery.com> <20090430201350.GA30619@lst.de> <200904302249.20940.paul@codesourcery.com> <20090501072449.GA21867@lst.de> <20090501110805.GA15311@shareable.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Rusty Russell , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Christian Borntraeger , Hannes Reinecke , Paul Brook To: Jamie Lokier Return-path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.210]:51152 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754390AbZEAO2P (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 May 2009 10:28:15 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090501110805.GA15311@shareable.org> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 12:08:06PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: > If you're using virtio-block to connect to lots of LUNs on lots of > targets (i.e. lots of block devices), don't you need similar queuing > code and error handling for all that too? Currenly there's a 1:1 relation of virtio drivers and virtio queues. Note that I don't argue against virtio-scsi, I brought this up first. I just thing that virtio-blk is actually nicer for some use cases. (and of course we'll have to keep it for backwards compatiblity anyway)