From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1JynOt-0003CJ-F5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 May 2008 08:26:35 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1JynOq-0003Bn-Tp
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 May 2008 08:26:34 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=57278 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JynOq-0003Bi-NK
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 May 2008 08:26:32 -0400
Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:35376)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <jamie@shareable.org>) id 1JynOq-0003p1-Gu
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 May 2008 08:26:32 -0400
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 13:26:29 +0100
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH][v2] Align file accesses with cache=off
	(O_DIRECT)
Message-ID: <20080521122629.GA14416@shareable.org>
References: <1211283126.4314.70.camel@frecb07144>
	<200805202352.17807.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<483373BA.6090108@codemonkey.ws>
	<200805210205.37432.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<4833778C.4030209@codemonkey.ws> <4833DC3F.8000604@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4833DC3F.8000604@suse.de>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>, Laurent Vivier <Laurent.Vivier@bull.net>, Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>

Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Anthony Liguori schrieb:
> >I don't think it's that important to try and guess the right alignment 
> >size, 512 is probably usually sufficient, but spreading alignment 
> >requirements of 512 throughout QEMU code is a bad idea because this is 
> >something that's very hardware/OS specific.
> 
> So better introduce a #define in block.h?
> 
> >For people that care about data integrity, we should be using O_SYNC, 
> >not O_DIRECT anyway.
> 
> Should we implement an option for O_SYNC then? (not in this patch, of 
> course)

Why would O_SYNC be better than O_DIRECT?

-- Jamie