On Tuesday 16 January 2007 1:13 am, Nate Diller wrote:
> On 1/15/07, David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What's needed is an async, non-sleeeping, interface ... with I/O
> > overlap. That's antithetical to using read()/write() calls, so
> > your proposed approach couldn't possibly work.
On 1/15/07, David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Monday 15 January 2007 5:54 pm, Nate Diller wrote:
> This removes the aio implementation from the usb gadget file system.
NAK. I see a deep mis-understanding here.
> Aside
> from making very creative (!) use of the aio retry path, it ca
On Monday 15 January 2007 5:54 pm, Nate Diller wrote:
> This removes the aio implementation from the usb gadget file system.
NAK. I see a deep mis-understanding here.
> Aside
> from making very creative (!) use of the aio retry path, it can't be of any
> use performance-wise
Other than the
This removes the aio implementation from the usb gadget file system. Aside
from making very creative (!) use of the aio retry path, it can't be of any
use performance-wise because it always kmalloc()s a bounce buffer for the
*whole* I/O size. Perhaps the only reason to keep it around is the abili
