From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lu8ts-0001WD-Lp for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:27:52 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lu8tn-0001TQ-2G for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:27:51 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=49616 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Lu8tm-0001TK-TQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:27:46 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.210]:48494) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA1:24) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Lu8tl-0000k7-FM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:27:45 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:27:43 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/9] struct iovec is now universally available Message-ID: <20090415172743.GA16001@lst.de> References: <1239812969-8320-1-git-send-email-markmc@redhat.com> <1239812969-8320-2-git-send-email-markmc@redhat.com> <1239812969-8320-3-git-send-email-markmc@redhat.com> <20090415165513.GA14504@lst.de> <1239816309.4431.169.camel@blaa> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1239816309.4431.169.camel@blaa> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Mark McLoughlin Cc: Jan Kiszka , Anthony Liguori , Christoph Hellwig , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 06:25:09PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 18:55 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 05:29:22PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > > struct iovec is now defined in qemu-common.h if needed, so we don't need > > > the tap code to handle !defined(HAVE_IOVEC). > > > > But is the writev system call also universally available? > > Fair point. > > I don't know of anywhere that qemu currently builds where writev() isn't > available ... do you? > > >From looking at the history, I got the impression that HAVE_IOVEC was > only for windows and that doesn't use this code. Windows would be my first guess, but if that code isn't built for windows the point is moot. > Also, if it is something we want to handle, then we should do it by > checking for writev() in configure and using HAVE_WRITEV Agreed.