From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:47706) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qmmqy-00050V-Qm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:11:49 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qmmqx-0005g2-Ue for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:11:48 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:33805 helo=newverein.lst.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qmmqx-0005fw-Ns for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:11:47 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:11:46 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig Message-ID: <20110729131146.GA6688@lst.de> References: <1311179069-27882-1-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> <1311179069-27882-50-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> <20110726130556.GF2853@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 49/55] block: Declare qemu_blockalign() in block.h, not block_int.h List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, quintela@redhat.com, dbaryshkov@gmail.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, lcapitulino@redhat.com, amit.shah@redhat.com, Christoph Hellwig On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:56:07AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > > Hmm. We already do proper read-modify-write cycles for actual data > > transfers, so killing the buffer inside SD sounds like the better > > idea. qemu_blockalign really should be used only for block-layer internal > > allocations. > > What about the uses in scsi-disk.c and ide/core.c? They are allocating internal bounce buffers due to suboptimal I/O models. But given that this is the reality in multiple qemu drivers I think I'll give up and ack the move.