From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1O9jet-00005I-Vr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 May 2010 14:49:24 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=50979 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O9jes-0008WJ-C6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 May 2010 14:49:23 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O9jeq-0006mr-Pa for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 May 2010 14:49:22 -0400 Received: from mail-yx0-f191.google.com ([209.85.210.191]:34306) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O9jep-0006mZ-Il for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 May 2010 14:49:20 -0400 Received: by yxe29 with SMTP id 29so1722817yxe.4 for ; Wed, 05 May 2010 11:49:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BE1BDAC.50105@codemonkey.ws> Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 13:49:16 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1273009170-17530-1-git-send-email-amit.shah@redhat.com> <1273009170-17530-5-git-send-email-amit.shah@redhat.com> <4BE16FB5.6040708@codemonkey.ws> <201005051434.20020.paul@codesourcery.com> <4BE1785B.6010208@codemonkey.ws> <4BE1BC5D.6040909@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4BE1BC5D.6040909@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH v7 4/6] char: Add qemu_chr_write_nb() for nonblocking writes List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gerd Hoffmann Cc: Amit Shah , Juan Quintela , Paul Brook , qemu list On 05/05/2010 01:43 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > On 05/05/10 15:53, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> This patch adds optional control flow in a pretty crufty way to *some* >> backends but not all. This just adds a bunch of complexity that will >> certainly introduce bugs. > > Amit plans to add support to the others as well. Beside that there is > a clearly defined backup plan: In case the non-blocking interface > isn't supported by $chardev it will fallback to use the blocking mode. If we have a second interface, we'll have two interfaces forever. I'd rather see us aggressive remove the blocking interface instead of introducing a second interface. Regards, Anthony Liguori > cheers, > Gerd >