From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IzIc0-0000Uf-9O for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:13:56 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IzIbv-0000UP-Me for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:13:55 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzIbv-0000UM-I6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:13:51 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IzIbu-0004kk-B4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:13:51 -0500 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lB3LD9GY014526 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 16:13:09 -0500 Received: from pobox.stuttgart.redhat.com (pobox.stuttgart.redhat.com [172.16.2.10]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lB3LD8Vi015161 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 16:13:08 -0500 Received: from zweiblum.travel.kraxel.org (vpn-4-28.str.redhat.com [10.32.4.28]) by pobox.stuttgart.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lB3LD7u7030362 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 16:13:07 -0500 Message-ID: <47547163.1020604@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:13:07 +0100 From: Gerd Hoffmann MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2 v2] Direct IDE I/O References: <11966765602186@bull.net> <4753D920.4060500@bellard.org> <1196677804.5275.5.camel@frecb07144> <475426C7.20503@codemonkey.ws> <20071203170800.GC3797@implementation> <47544588.10700@codemonkey.ws> <1196709044.5587.20.camel@frecb07144> In-Reply-To: <1196709044.5587.20.camel@frecb07144> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Hi, > BTW, if everyone thinks it could be a good idea I can port block-raw.c > to use linux kernel AIO (without removing POSIX AIO support, of course) IMHO it would be a much better idea to kill the aio interface altogether and instead make the block drivers reentrant. Then you can use (multiple) posix threads to run the I/O async if you want. cheers, Gerd