[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E0AE0FE.2090905@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:23:26 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
Linux Virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
qemu-devel <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <chellwig@...hat.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: virtio scsi host draft specification, v3
On 06/12/2011 09:51 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> >
>> > If a device uses more than one queue it is the responsibility of the
>> > device to ensure strict request ordering.
> Maybe I misunderstand - how can this be the responsibility of
> the device if the device does not get the information about
> the original ordering of the requests?
>
> For example, if the driver is crazy enough to put
> all write requests on one queue and all barriers
> on another one, how is the device supposed to ensure
> ordering?
I agree here, in fact I misread Hannes's comment as "if a driver uses
more than one queue it is responsibility of the driver to ensure strict
request ordering". If you send requests to different queues, you know
that those requests are independent. I don't think anything else is
feasible in the virtio framework.
Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists