Am 15.09.2011 08:04, schrieb Paolo Bonzini: > On 09/15/2011 01:08 AM, ronnie sahlberg wrote: >> I think it is reasonable to just not support iscsi at all for >> blocksize that is not multiple of 512 bytes >> since a read-modify-write cycle across a network would probably be >> prohibitively expensive. > > Agreed. > >> .bdrv_flush() I can easily add a synchronous implementation of this >> unless your patch is expected to be merged >> in the near future. > > We need the same patch for NBD, so I wouldn't bother with the > synchronous flush.
Doesn't Stefan's patch conflict with your bdrv_co_flush patch? Long term I think we should get rid of bdrv_flush and bdrv_aio_flush and make all drivers use bdrv_co_flush. Having three different interfaces for flush and emulation functions that do mappings for all missing implementations is just insane. Kevin
