From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JynZT-00005H-MA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 May 2008 08:37:31 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JynZS-0008W4-Ik for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 May 2008 08:37:30 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58045 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JynZR-0008Vf-Tq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 May 2008 08:37:30 -0400 Received: from bzq-179-150-194.static.bezeqint.net ([212.179.150.194]:22226 helo=il.qumranet.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JynZR-0006bC-FU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 May 2008 08:37:29 -0400 Message-ID: <48341783.3060204@qumranet.com> Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 15:37:23 +0300 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH][v2] Align file accesses with cache=off (O_DIRECT) References: <1211283126.4314.70.camel@frecb07144> <200805202352.17807.paul@codesourcery.com> <483373BA.6090108@codemonkey.ws> <200805210205.37432.paul@codesourcery.com> <4833778C.4030209@codemonkey.ws> <4833DC3F.8000604@suse.de> <20080521122629.GA14416@shareable.org> In-Reply-To: <20080521122629.GA14416@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 Cc: Blue Swirl , Laurent Vivier , Paul Brook Jamie Lokier wrote: > Why would O_SYNC be better than O_DIRECT? > O_SYNC is a write-through cache. O_DIRECT is completely uncached. Both have their uses (including in this context), so you can't say one is better than the other. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function