On 9 May 2012 21:59, Anthony Liguori <aligu...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > On 05/09/2012 03:46 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >> Longer term (ie post 1.1) I'm strongly in favour of kicking >> out coroutines, because I think there clearly is no single >> solid portable implementation possible. C just isn't designed >> to allow them; better not to try to swim against the current.
> Unfortunately, voting for code to be different doesn't actually make it > different. Yeah, I agree with this sentiment... > If you're volunteering to rewrite the block layer to not require coroutines > (either by using a state machine or by using re-entrant threads and fixing > any locking issues associated with that) that's wonderful. > > But we decided to not do synchronous I/O years ago and still haven't removed > it all from the tree. Coroutines got us much closer to getting rid of > synchronous I/O. ...but I would at least like us to take the position that we don't introduce *more* users of coroutines. -- PMM
