From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=47853 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q099B-0001h7-Cv
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 05:05:34 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1Q099A-00086g-0E
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 05:05:33 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:14119)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1Q0999-00086D-It
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 05:05:31 -0400
Message-ID: <4D81CF57.9000300@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:07:35 +0100
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20110315141049.GA30627@lst.de>	<20110315141100.GA30710@lst.de>	<AANLkTikGa2o-qso-kGWUkh4qN8gtkr6K=p_k1zJe3s48@mail.gmail.com>	<20110316140844.GA21877@lst.de>
	<AANLkTim=+ELwL1pc=4ASb133qUEXt+-Dj0XZBA=GXj5S@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim=+ELwL1pc=4ASb133qUEXt+-Dj0XZBA=GXj5S@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/4] block: clarify the meaning of
	BDRV_O_NOCACHE
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>
Cc: "prerna@linux.vnet.ibm.com Anthony Liguori" <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Am 16.03.2011 18:00, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 09:42:37AM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>> -    writethrough = ((flags & BDRV_O_CACHE_MASK) == 0);
>>> +    writethrough = ((flags & (BDRV_O_CACHE_WB | BDRV_O_NO_FLUSH)) == 0);
>>
>> or rather
>>
>>        writethrough = ((flags & (BDRV_O_CACHE_WB) != );
>>
>> but yes, this code had sneaked in since my initial version.
> 
> My intention was that if we don't care about honoring flushes then we
> might as well use Qcow2Cache.  But yes, just checking for cache mode
> is the clearest.

You mean for a possible writethrough mode with BDRV_O_NO_FLUSH set? Such
a mode doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Kevin