On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:19:55PM -0800, Zach Brown wrote:
>
> > What's the driving need to rip out functionality?
>
> Well, in this case of the ring it's an irritation to have to massage the
> tracking of events into the ring format when you, say, back the aio
> implementation with syslets. If it were just queueing up results for
> io_getevents(), which can lock in the kernel, we'd have more freedom.
>
> It's a nit, don't get me wrong.
Then why not massage the ring into what you need from a ring buffer? Come up
with some real design criteria that are to be satisfied so some real
direction can be had in discussions.
> > Why not actually submit
> > some more in kernel implementations of aio and then evaluate if the api
> > really needs to be ripped out or not (and use syslets or whatever to
> > implement
> > them)?
>
> Don't ask me, ask the subsystem maintainers who have not chosen to do
> this over the last N years.
Want a patch that spews "->read() is not async" for every device in the
kernel? That would get attention. As it stands today, nobody cares for
functionality that they aren't directly involved with and which does not
block development. Patches have been bounced around doing aio via threads
but almost always got dropped for some reason or other, I just don't have
the time to carry them around indefinately.
-ben
--
"Time is of no importance, Mr. President, only life is important."
Don't Email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
