On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Kent Overstreet wrote:
>
> The "struct aiocb" isn't something you have to or necessarily want to
> keep around.
Oh, don't get me wrong - the _only_ reason for "struct aiocb" would be
backwards compatibility. The point is, we'd need to keep that
compatibility to be useful - otherwise we just end up having to duplicate
the work (do _both_ fibrils _and_ the in-kernel AIO).
> I don't see the point in having a ring for completed events, since
> it's at most two pointers per completion; quite a bit less data being
> sent back than for submissions.
I'm certainly personally perfectly happy with the kernel not remembering
any completed events at all - once it's done, it's done and forgotten. So
doing
async(mycookie)
wait_for_async(mycookie)
could actually return with -ECHILD (or similar error).
In other words, if you see it as a "process interface" (instead of as a
"filedescriptor interface"), I'd suggest automatic reaping of the fibril
children. I do *not* think we want the equivalent of zombies - if only
because they are just a lot of work to reap, and potentially a lot of
memory to keep around.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
