Re: aio-core why not using SuS? [Re: [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29)]

From: Suparna Bhattacharya (
Date: Fri Aug 16 2002 - 04:39:46 EST

On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 09:42:25PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> > Now reading the SuS specifications I also like less and less our current
> > kernel API of this sumbit_io, the SuS does exactly what I suggested
> > originally that is aio_read/aio_write/aio_fsync as separate calls. So
> > the merging effect mentioned by Ben cannot be taken advantage of by the
> > kernel anyways because userspace will issue separate calls for each
> > command.
> Read it again. You've totally missed lio_listio. Also keep in mind what

Also, wasn't the fact that the API was designed to support both POSIX
and completion port style semantics, another reason for a different
(lightweight) in-kernel api? The c10k users of aio are likely to find
the latter model (i.e. completion ports) more efficient.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 23 2002 - 22:00:11 EST