On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> We want to remove retry-based AIO because it is fundemantally unsafe.
Instead of "fundemantally" that should have been "fundamentally" I guess ?
Thanks,
Fubo.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
t
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 08:04:11PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> >@@ -52,15 +46,6 @@ struct kioctx;
> > * not ask the method again -- ki_retry must ensure forward progress.
> > * aio_complete() must be called once and only once in the future, multiple
> > * calls may result in undefined behaviour
>@@ -52,15 +46,6 @@ struct kioctx;
> * not ask the method again -- ki_retry must ensure forward progress.
> * aio_complete() must be called once and only once in the future, multiple
> * calls may result in undefined behaviour.
>- *
>- * If ki_retry returns -EIOCBRETRY it has made a promise that
From: Zach Brown
This removes the retry-based AIO infrastructure now that nothing in tree
is using it.
We want to remove retry-based AIO because it is fundemantally unsafe.
It retries IO submission from a kernel thread that has only assumed the
mm of the submitting task. All other task_struct r
4 matches
Mail list logo