From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=55321 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pq6hM-0001V8-En
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 11:27:21 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <nick@bytemark.co.uk>) id 1Pq6hK-0000LE-VZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 11:27:20 -0500
Received: from nog.sh.bytemark.co.uk ([212.110.161.168]:42943)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <nick@bytemark.co.uk>) id 1Pq6hK-0000Ki-RT
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 11:27:18 -0500
From: Nicholas Thomas <nick@bytemark.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4D5BBC7B.9020807@redhat.com>
References: <1297712422.12551.2.camel@den>
	<AANLkTinWW5bJ8uTbEPcq_yc7Dqg0cSNRcfN-F6xuRueO@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D5A5ECD.7060701@redhat.com> <1297805193.12551.39.camel@den>
	<4D5BBC7B.9020807@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 16:27:12 +0000
Message-ID: <1297960032.21300.48.camel@desk4.office.bytemark.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: NBD block device backend - 'improvements'
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: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Hi again,

On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 13:00 +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 15.02.2011 22:26, schrieb Nicholas Thomas:
> > On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 12:09 +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >> Am 14.02.2011 21:32, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
> I'm not sure about how much duplication there actually is, but if you
> can take a closer look and think it's worthwhile, we should probably
> consider it.

It's a couple of hundred lines, I'd guess - on reflection, it's probably
not enough to be too bothered about - so I haven't. I'll submit a
patchset in a moment implementing the first part of what we've been
talking about (converting the NBD driver to use the aio interface).

Assuming we can get this merged, I'll submit an IPv6 and a timeout=
patch too. It might also be worth adding aio support to qemu-nbd - we
use the canonical nbd-server binary, so it won't affect us directly, but
it seems a shame for the server to be behind the client's capabilities.

/Nick