On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 04:06:33PM -0300, Leonardo Bras Soares Passos wrote: > Hello Peter, thanks for reviewing! > > On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 6:52 PM Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 06:16:04PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > +ssize_t qio_channel_async_writev(QIOChannel *ioc, > > > > + const struct iovec *iov, > > > > + size_t niov, > > > > + int *fds, > > > > + size_t nfds, > > > > + Error **errp); > > > > > > This is missing any flags. We need something like > > > > > > QIO_CHANNEL_WRITE_FLAG_ZEROCOPY > > > > > > passed in an 'unsigned int flags' parameter. This in > > > turn makes me question whether we should have the > > > common helpers at all, as the api is going to be > > > different for sync vs async. > > > > > > The QIOChannelFeature enum probably ought to be > > > extended with QIO_CHANNEL_FEATURE_WRITE_ZEROCOPY with > > > support for probing whether that's supported or not. > > > > I'm also wondering whether we could just drop the fds/nfds as per my > > knowledge > > SCM_RIGHT is the only user, at the meantime I don't see why an async > > interface > > would pass in any fd anyways.. Thanks, > > FWIW, I think it's a great idea. > Daniel, what do you think?
Yes, FD passing is not compatible with async operations, becuase it is too complex to deal with FD lifetime on failure to send IO Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
