On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Kevin Wolf <kwolf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Am 26.09.2011 08:15, schrieb Zhi Yong Wu:
>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Kevin Wolf <kwolf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static void bdrv_block_timer(void *opaque)
>>>> +{
>>>> + BlockDriverState *bs = opaque;
>>>> + BlockQueue *queue = bs->block_queue;
>>>> +
>>>> + qemu_block_queue_flush(queue);
>>>
>>> Hm, didn't really notice it while reading patch 1, but
>>> qemu_block_queue_flush() is misleading. It's really something like
>> Why do you say this is misleading?
>>> qemu_block_queue_submit().
>> Right. It will resubmit all enqueued I/O requests.
>
> For me, flush sounds as if it waits for completion of all requests.
The code is currently except one I/O error. But i think that we should
not take the action, right? I don't make sure if we should keep all
the enqueued request in order.
>
> Kevin
>
--
Regards,
Zhi Yong Wu
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
