From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KicuS-00042l-J3
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:32:36 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KicuR-00042Y-62
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:32:36 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=44875 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KicuR-00042V-0S
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:32:35 -0400
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:36667)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <mtosatti@redhat.com>) id 1KicuQ-0003Vo-LZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:32:34 -0400
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:31:09 -0300
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20080924223109.GA27289@dmt.cnet>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <48D85849.2080302@us.ibm.com>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 2/3] Move aio implementation out of raw
	block driver
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: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Ryan Harper <ryanh@us.ibm.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 09:45:29PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> +#endif
>> +
>> +typedef struct RawAIOCB {
>> +    BlockDriverAIOCB common;
>> +    struct aiocb posix_aiocb;
>> +    struct RawAIOCB *next;
>> +    int ret;
>> +} RawAIOCB;
>>   
>
> The whole small-object allocator for AIOCBs seems a bit of a premature  
> optimization to me.  It makes this whole thing terribly awkward.   
> Marcelo had a patch at one point to switch the small object allocate to  
> just malloc/free.  Marcelo: any reason you didn't follow up with that 
> patch?

You mean the free object caching? Yeah can't see much point in it.

Will look for it.