On 10/07/2010 05:45 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 10/07/2010 04:49 PM, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub wrote:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Anthony Liguorianth...@codemonkey.ws
wrote:
On 10/07/2010 03:47 PM, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub wrote:
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 10/07/2010 05:45 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time understanding what it is you're
objecting to, or what you would prefer, as there are two different things
we're talking about here (callbacks
On 10/08/2010 10:50 AM, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub wrote:
Oh, that makes it more clean. Considering that we did it for kvm, and
looking at the kvm qemu_bh_schedule() implementation, it does look
thread safe (there might be an issue though with canceling the bh
though, haven't looked at it, not really
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 08/03/2010 03:14 PM, Christian Brunner wrote:
+#include qemu-common.h
+#include qemu-error.h
+#includesys/types.h
+#includestdbool.h
+
+#includeqemu-common.h
This looks to be unnecessary. Generally, system
On 10/07/2010 01:08 PM, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub wrote:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Anthony Liguorianth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 08/03/2010 03:14 PM, Christian Brunner wrote:
+#include qemu-common.h
+#include qemu-error.h
+#includesys/types.h
+#includestdbool.h
+
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 10/07/2010 01:08 PM, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub wrote:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Anthony Liguorianth...@codemonkey.ws
wrote:
On 08/03/2010 03:14 PM, Christian Brunner wrote:
+#include qemu-common.h
On 10/07/2010 01:41 PM, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub wrote:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Anthony Liguorianth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 10/07/2010 01:08 PM, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub wrote:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Anthony Liguorianth...@codemonkey.ws
wrote:
On
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 10/07/2010 01:41 PM, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub wrote:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Anthony Liguorianth...@codemonkey.ws
wrote:
On 10/07/2010 01:08 PM, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub wrote:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:12
On 10/07/2010 03:47 PM, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub wrote:
How is that possible? Are the callbacks delivered in the context of a
different thread? If so, don't you need locking?
Not sure I'm completely following you. The callbacks are delivered in
the context of a different thread, but won't
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 10/07/2010 03:47 PM, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub wrote:
How is that possible? Are the callbacks delivered in the context of a
different thread? If so, don't you need locking?
Not sure I'm completely following you.
On 10/07/2010 04:49 PM, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub wrote:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Anthony Liguorianth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 10/07/2010 03:47 PM, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub wrote:
How is that possible? Are the callbacks delivered in the context of a
different thread? If so,
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 10/07/2010 04:49 PM, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub wrote:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Anthony Liguorianth...@codemonkey.ws
wrote:
On 10/07/2010 03:47 PM, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub wrote:
How is that possible? Are the callbacks
Am 23.09.2010 04:21, schrieb Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub:
Following up on this one, I'd like to know whether there is any
pending issue preventing rbd from being included upstream.
Basically for me the only problem at the moment is a lack of reviews. If
nobody else picks it up, I'll get to it
On 08/03/2010 03:14 PM, Christian Brunner wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 12:37:18AM +0400, malc wrote:
Thare are whitespace issues in this patch.
Thanks for looking at the patch. Here is an updated patch, that
should fix the whitespace issues:
This is a block driver for the
Following up on this one, I'd like to know whether there is any
pending issue preventing rbd from being included upstream.
Thanks,
Yehuda
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Christian Brunner c...@muc.de wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 12:37:18AM +0400, malc wrote:
Thare are whitespace issues in
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 12:37:18AM +0400, malc wrote:
Thare are whitespace issues in this patch.
Thanks for looking at the patch. Here is an updated patch, that
should fix the whitespace issues:
This is a block driver for the distributed file system Ceph
(http://ceph.newdream.net/). This
After the release of ceph 0.21 I felt it was about time to re-submit
the qemu block driver for ceph:
This is an updated block driver for the distributed file system Ceph
(http://ceph.newdream.net/). This driver uses librados (which
is part of the Ceph server) for direct access to the Ceph object
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, Christian Brunner wrote:
After the release of ceph 0.21 I felt it was about time to re-submit
the qemu block driver for ceph:
This is an updated block driver for the distributed file system Ceph
(http://ceph.newdream.net/). This driver uses librados (which
is part of
18 matches
Mail list logo
