On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 04:14:48PM GMT, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 04:55:18PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> These defines are also useful for vhost-user-blk when it is compiled
>> in some POSIX systems that do not define them, so let's move them to
>> “qemu/osdep.h”.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> include/qemu/osdep.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
>> block/file-posix.c | 14 --------------
>> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/qemu/osdep.h b/include/qemu/osdep.h
>> index f61edcfdc2..e165b5cb1b 100644
>> --- a/include/qemu/osdep.h
>> +++ b/include/qemu/osdep.h
>> @@ -325,6 +325,20 @@ void QEMU_ERROR("code path is reachable")
>> #define ESHUTDOWN 4099
>> #endif
>>
>> +/* OS X does not have O_DSYNC */
>> +#ifndef O_DSYNC
>> +#ifdef O_SYNC
>> +#define O_DSYNC O_SYNC
>> +#elif defined(O_FSYNC)
>> +#define O_DSYNC O_FSYNC
>> +#endif
>> +#endif
>> +
>> +/* Approximate O_DIRECT with O_DSYNC if O_DIRECT isn't available */
>> +#ifndef O_DIRECT
>> +#define O_DIRECT O_DSYNC
>> +#endif
>
>Please don't do this - we can't be confident that all code in
>QEMU will be OK with O_DIRECT being simulated in this way.
>
>I'm not convinced that the O_DSYNC simulation is a good idea
>to do tree-wide either.
I was a little scared, and you and the failing tests on win64 convinced
me to bring this back as in v4 ;-)
Thanks,
Stefano