From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gerd Hoffmann Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 2/3] Move aio implementation out of raw block driver Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:04:50 +0200 Message-ID: <48D92FC2.2000203@redhat.com> References: <1222125454-21744-1-git-send-email-ryanh@us.ibm.com> <1222125454-21744-3-git-send-email-ryanh@us.ibm.com> <48D85849.2080302@us.ibm.com> <20080923143909.GK31395@us.ibm.com> <48D902EB.8070701@redhat.com> <48D91403.8090007@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ryan Harper , Marcelo Tosatti , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:60936 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751359AbYIWSFB (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:05:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: <48D91403.8090007@us.ibm.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Anthony Liguori wrote: > Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> How about providing a aio interface implementation which simply uses >> read/write syscalls (thereby not being really async obviously)? Then >> use that as fallback instead of aio emulation? And also drop CONFIG_AIO >> then? > > Yeah, this is basically what block-raw-posix does today. I was thinking > the same thing. I was also thinking that you could do an aio > implementation for win32 and possibly reunify block-raw-posix and > block-raw-linux. Sure, that the next logical steps. Later we can also convert all block-* drivers to the new aio interface and subsequently drop alot of dead block layer code. > But before going down this route, I want to see if linux-aio is really > the right tool for the job. IMHO this all makes sense even in case linux-aio turns out to not be worth it. cheers, Gerd