Use the BDRV_O_CACHE_* flags instead.
Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
---
hw/xen_disk.c | 8 +-------
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/xen_disk.c b/hw/xen_disk.c
index 4a6d89c..3e4a47b 100644
--- a/hw/xen_disk.c
+++ b/hw/xen_disk.c
@@ -48,7 +48,6 @@
/* ------------------------------------------------------------- */
-static int syncwrite = 0;
static int batch_maps = 0;
static int max_requests = 32;
@@ -189,15 +188,10 @@ static int ioreq_parse(struct ioreq *ioreq)
ioreq->presync = 1;
return 0;
}
- if (!syncwrite) {
- ioreq->postsync = 1;
- }
+ ioreq->postsync = 1;
/* fall through */
case BLKIF_OP_WRITE:
ioreq->prot = PROT_READ; /* from memory */
- if (syncwrite) {
- ioreq->postsync = 1;
- }
break;
default:
xen_be_printf(&blkdev->xendev, 0, "error: unknown operation
(%d)\n",
--
1.7.2.5
Am 24.04.2012 13:22, schrieb Stefano Stabellini:> Use the BDRV_O_CACHE_* flags instead. > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>Doesn''t apply to qemu.git because...> --- > hw/xen_disk.c | 8 +------- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/xen_disk.c b/hw/xen_disk.c > index 4a6d89c..3e4a47b 100644 > --- a/hw/xen_disk.c > +++ b/hw/xen_disk.c > @@ -48,7 +48,6 @@ > > /* ------------------------------------------------------------- */ > > -static int syncwrite = 0; > static int batch_maps = 0; > > static int max_requests = 32; > @@ -189,15 +188,10 @@ static int ioreq_parse(struct ioreq *ioreq) > ioreq->presync = 1; > return 0; > } > - if (!syncwrite) { > - ioreq->postsync = 1;...this is ioreq->presync = ioreq->postsync = 1; And while we''re at it, the commit message could mention that there was no way to set this flag anyway, so we''re just removing dead code. Kevin
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Kevin Wolf wrote:> Am 24.04.2012 13:22, schrieb Stefano Stabellini: > > Use the BDRV_O_CACHE_* flags instead. > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> > > Doesn''t apply to qemu.git because... > > > --- > > hw/xen_disk.c | 8 +------- > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/hw/xen_disk.c b/hw/xen_disk.c > > index 4a6d89c..3e4a47b 100644 > > --- a/hw/xen_disk.c > > +++ b/hw/xen_disk.c > > @@ -48,7 +48,6 @@ > > > > /* ------------------------------------------------------------- */ > > > > -static int syncwrite = 0; > > static int batch_maps = 0; > > > > static int max_requests = 32; > > @@ -189,15 +188,10 @@ static int ioreq_parse(struct ioreq *ioreq) > > ioreq->presync = 1; > > return 0; > > } > > - if (!syncwrite) { > > - ioreq->postsync = 1; > > ...this is ioreq->presync = ioreq->postsync = 1;That''s because it is based on top of the following two patches: xen_disk: use bdrv_aio_flush instead of bdrv_flush http://marc.info/?l=qemu-devel&m=133434258008959&w=2 xen_disk: implement BLKIF_OP_FLUSH_DISKCACHE, remove BLKIF_OP_WRITE_BARRIER http://marc.info/?l=qemu-devel&m=133459581417878&w=2 I have just sent a pull request for them (http://marc.info/?l=qemu-devel&m=133526669019403) after leaving lying around for a while. Next time do you want me to send xen_disk specific pull request to you instead? Sorry if I shouldn''t have sent the pull request directly...> And while we''re at it, the commit message could mention that there was > no way to set this flag anyway, so we''re just removing dead code.good point
Am 24.04.2012 13:55, schrieb Stefano Stabellini:> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> Am 24.04.2012 13:22, schrieb Stefano Stabellini: >>> Use the BDRV_O_CACHE_* flags instead. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> >> >> Doesn''t apply to qemu.git because... >> >>> --- >>> hw/xen_disk.c | 8 +------- >>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/hw/xen_disk.c b/hw/xen_disk.c >>> index 4a6d89c..3e4a47b 100644 >>> --- a/hw/xen_disk.c >>> +++ b/hw/xen_disk.c >>> @@ -48,7 +48,6 @@ >>> >>> /* ------------------------------------------------------------- */ >>> >>> -static int syncwrite = 0; >>> static int batch_maps = 0; >>> >>> static int max_requests = 32; >>> @@ -189,15 +188,10 @@ static int ioreq_parse(struct ioreq *ioreq) >>> ioreq->presync = 1; >>> return 0; >>> } >>> - if (!syncwrite) { >>> - ioreq->postsync = 1; >> >> ...this is ioreq->presync = ioreq->postsync = 1; > > That''s because it is based on top of the following two patches: > > xen_disk: use bdrv_aio_flush instead of bdrv_flush > http://marc.info/?l=qemu-devel&m=133434258008959&w=2 > > xen_disk: implement BLKIF_OP_FLUSH_DISKCACHE, remove BLKIF_OP_WRITE_BARRIER > http://marc.info/?l=qemu-devel&m=133459581417878&w=2 > > I have just sent a pull request for them > (http://marc.info/?l=qemu-devel&m=133526669019403) after leaving lying > around for a while. > Next time do you want me to send xen_disk specific pull request to you > instead? Sorry if I shouldn''t have sent the pull request directly...I see. I wasn''t aware that you''re doing pull requests, but it isn''t a problem. It just means that you should probably do a pull request for this one as well instead of expecting that I pick it up. But you can have my Acked-by, if you like. Should I ignore xen_disk patches from now on for the block branch and assume that you pick them up? Kevin
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Kevin Wolf wrote:> > That''s because it is based on top of the following two patches: > > > > xen_disk: use bdrv_aio_flush instead of bdrv_flush > > http://marc.info/?l=qemu-devel&m=133434258008959&w=2 > > > > xen_disk: implement BLKIF_OP_FLUSH_DISKCACHE, remove BLKIF_OP_WRITE_BARRIER > > http://marc.info/?l=qemu-devel&m=133459581417878&w=2 > > > > I have just sent a pull request for them > > (http://marc.info/?l=qemu-devel&m=133526669019403) after leaving lying > > around for a while. > > Next time do you want me to send xen_disk specific pull request to you > > instead? Sorry if I shouldn''t have sent the pull request directly... > > I see. I wasn''t aware that you''re doing pull requests, but it isn''t a > problem. It just means that you should probably do a pull request for > this one as well instead of expecting that I pick it up. But you can > have my Acked-by, if you like. > > Should I ignore xen_disk patches from now on for the block branch and > assume that you pick them up?I am happy to issue pull requests for xen_disk patches, but I still welcome your reviews :-)