At Sat, 17 Sep 2011 16:49:22 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > On 09/17/2011 08:29 AM, MORITA Kazutaka wrote: > >> > +#else > >> > + struct iovec *p = iov; > >> > + ret = 0; > >> > + while (iovlen> 0) { > >> > + int rc; > >> > + if (do_sendv) { > >> > + rc = send(sockfd, p->iov_base, p->iov_len, 0); > >> > + } else { > >> > + rc = qemu_recv(sockfd, p->iov_base, p->iov_len, 0); > >> > + } > >> > + if (rc == -1) { > >> > + if (errno == EINTR) { > >> > + continue; > >> > + } > >> > + if (ret == 0) { > >> > + ret = -1; > >> > + } > >> > + break; > >> > + } > >> > + iovlen--, p++; > >> > + ret += rc; > >> > + } > > This code can be called inside coroutines with a non-blocking fd, so > > should we avoid busy waiting? > > It doesn't busy wait, it exits with EAGAIN. I'll squash in here the
Oops, you're right. Sorry for the noise. Thanks, Kazutaka > first hunk of patch 4, which is needed. > > qemu_co_recvv already handles reads that return zero, unlike sheepdog's > do_readv_writev. I probably moved it there inadvertently while moving > code around to cutils.c, but in order to fix qemu-ga I need to create a > new file qemu-coroutine-io.c. > > Kevin, do you want me to resubmit everything, or are you going to apply > some more patches to the block branch (5 to 12 should be fine)? > > Paolo >