[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: aio: compat_ioctl issue?
    Michael Tokarev <> writes:

    > Jeff Moyer wrote:
    > []
    >> Sorry for taking so long on this. I only tested the case where niovs >
    >> fast_segs, and I missed an obvious thing: I didn't assign the return
    >> pointer to the proper iovec.
    > There's no need to be sorry really. Because, well, the whole thing isn't
    > quite useful anyway: running proper 64bit code is preferable ;)
    > I actually tried the thing, running a guest right now, which in turn is
    > running a quick benchmark and appears to perform quite good at it too.

    OK, great. I'm in the process of unifying the duplicated code, now, so
    I might ask for one more sanity check if you have the time and patience
    for it.

    >> So, this patch should get you going.
    > Well, I already switched to 64bit kvm binary for my case, and actually
    > that one makes alot more sense anyway: there's no conversion like this
    > needed, and no 32<=>64bit mode switching either. (Actually 32bit code
    > in this my case is slower elsewhere too).

    OK, makes sense, but we should get this right.

    > By the way, how about the case when we've several {write,read}v in the
    > iocb array? Will each use the same fast_segs array from the beginning,
    > overwriting data of previous iocb element? :) Just... curious :)

    No, each iocb has a built-in iovec which gets specified for the

    > Thank you for your support!
    > You can add my
    > Tested-By: Michael Tokarev <>
    > if you want. Thanks!



     \ /
      Last update: 2010-03-16 21:47    [W:0.022 / U:1.508 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site