From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JtjOo-0005xe-Ro for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 May 2008 09:09:34 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JtjOn-0005vc-AS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 May 2008 09:09:34 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=59744 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JtjOn-0005vQ-47 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 May 2008 09:09:33 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JtjOm-0004uu-Nq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 May 2008 09:09:32 -0400 Received: from Relay2.suse.de (relay-ext.suse.de [195.135.221.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E21AB460E3 for ; Wed, 7 May 2008 15:09:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4821A8F0.9070506@suse.de> Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 15:04:48 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [4367] Align file accesses with cache=off (Kevin Wolf, Laurent Vivier) References: <4820D905.4020407@bellard.org> <48216579.3060204@suse.de> <20080507123733.GA2822@shareable.org> In-Reply-To: <20080507123733.GA2822@shareable.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed 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 Jamie Lokier schrieb: > Kevin Wolf wrote: >> Btw, it is quite interesting to see that a serious discussion of a patch >> happens only if it is already committed. This could have been discussed >> a week ago when we agreed to go in the apparently wrong direction. And >> the patch has been on the list much longer than this one week. > > IIRC, the same issues (recursive callback vs. queued callback, > problems with direct and non-direct I/O in flight at the same time) > were raised before it was committed, but it was committed anyway. No, nobody mentioned the recursion problem. And you were talking about problem with two different file descriptors for one file, not about the fcntl solution. Ok, might also be that the hints were just not explicit enough for me. ;-) But even if so, this is more of a general feeling about how patches are handled and not only related to this patch. Kevin