[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:0.082 / U:1.384 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site