From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.39 - what Xen components went in. Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 11:02:25 -0400 Message-ID: <20110514150225.GA31761@dumpdata.com> References: <20110513143615.GA16193@dumpdata.com> <20110513164927.GA18484@dumpdata.com> <4DCE4C45.8080706@debian.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DCE4C45.8080706@debian.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Thomas Goirand Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, xen-users@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 05:32:53PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 05/14/2011 12:49 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > >> I assume this means that drivers/block/xen-blkback.c is the last major > >> milestone to be pushed upstream? > >> > > There are also some semi-major ones, but right now the xen-blkback is important > > since it provides so much more performance benefit than the QEMU one. > > > > Thanks a lot Konrad, for the report. > > Can you tell what the problem was with of xen-blkback.c? Not sure I understand you. Then xen block backend (so drivers/block/xen-blkback/*) is going through review on LKML? Or are you asking about the QEMU one (hw/xen_disk.c, aka 'qdisk' implementation)?. If that is the case I direct you to http://darnok.org/xen/qdisk_vs_blkback_v3.1 (and take a look at the nice little png files).