From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46976) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZG69J-0004zN-J6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 09:58:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZG69I-0006hl-K7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 09:58:01 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 14:57:56 +0100 From: Stefan Hajnoczi Message-ID: <20150717135756.GG6572@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> References: <1437127189-1137-1-git-send-email-stefanha@redhat.com> <20150717105615.GB4622@noname.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jt0yj30bxbg11sci" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150717105615.GB4622@noname.redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] blockdev: warn about aio=native if libaio is unavailable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster --jt0yj30bxbg11sci Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:56:15PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 17.07.2015 um 11:59 hat Stefan Hajnoczi geschrieben: > > QEMU silently ignores aio=3Dnative if libaio is unavailable. It is > > confusing when aio=3Dnative performance is identical to aio=3Dthreads > > because the binary was accidentally built without libaio. > >=20 > > Use error_report() because failing would break backward compatibility. > > There are probably users using aio=3Dnative who would be inconvenienced= if > > QEMU suddenly refused to start their guests. > >=20 > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi >=20 > I hope not too many people are using aio=3Dnative without having libaio > compiled in... Can we make it a message like for the case with > aio=3Dnative,cache.direct=3Doff, i.e. a deprecation warning that allows us > to make this an error in a few releases? Yes, I'll move the warning to raw-posix.c so all callers benefit from it. --jt0yj30bxbg11sci Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVqQnkAAoJEJykq7OBq3PIS+gH/RQwhCzD/godCCft7vCwFKz+ rqlL5BdHEB+toRjeYMnPpi8jLw/yiACj9Lmjm8xB8RajsbSWc8fNIkgoaVgorcw/ R41qKQy4lB2E+4POLsv9XmZSKbndpPy18EpJQ/CdfMZ8iJXKQmGaTK9vCPjxisvr MCyaAKbcW9iPEG9+mlxOuNONhKevIp11+HwX5P9PXTFI4jgQgxE3zYaqxQvthvxk GXcYb6L4MUknjJObMquUNbW7TFfc6TpvKvGwtHwZGvqZFrPo2XJxQi9T6TWEcPxQ RI4w4BwXAopKN2iwLkBjnybg06GEZeYOq+zbrtmoWX2he/XzvjmtsUw6iW87Rq0= =VNvI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --jt0yj30bxbg11sci--