From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] vhost-blk implementation
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 15:59:12 -0400
Message-ID: <20100405195912.GA17589@infradead.org>
References: <1269306023.7931.72.camel@badari-desktop> <4BA891E2.9040500@redhat.com> <20100324200502.GB22272@infradead.org> <4BAB7AA8.8030509@shiftmail.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
	Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@us.ibm.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Asdo <asdo@shiftmail.org>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:58004 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1756100Ab0DET7V (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 5 Apr 2010 15:59:21 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4BAB7AA8.8030509@shiftmail.org>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 04:00:56PM +0100, Asdo wrote:
> Would the loop device provide the features of a block device? I recall  
> barrier support at least has been added recently.

It does, but not in a very efficient way.

> Is it recommended to run kvm on a loopback mounted file compared to on a  
> raw file?

No.