Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] libxl: introduce an option for disabling the non-O_DIRECT workaround [and 1 more messages]

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

(can you not top post please)

On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 11:51 +0100, Felipe Franciosi wrote:
> I would personally prefer to call the flag something else. But if this
> would delay checking in the patch, then never mind.

I think it most likely needs rebasing and reposting anyway, so we may as
well get this right at the same time.

> Using (or not using) O_DIRECT is not only about safety. So I'd
> recommend it being called "directio" instead of "direct-io-safe".

The use of "direct-io-safe" is already deployed and understood by
released qemus so I'm not sure we can simply change it (although we
could add a more descriptive synonym I suppose).

For the libxl layer we might want to include some sort of indication
that this is best effort in the field name e.g. "request_directio",
"prefer_directio" etc.

Thoughts?

Ian.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel