Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:53:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:53:21 -0500 Received: from nat-pool.corp.redhat.com ([199.183.24.200]:45902 "EHLO devserv.devel.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:53:08 -0500 Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:51:38 -0500 (EST) From: To: Alan Cox cc: Christoph Hellwig , "Stephen C. Tweedie" , Steve Lord , , Subject: Re: [Kiobuf-io-devel] RFC: Kernel mechanism: Compound event wait /notify + callback chains In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Alan Cox wrote: > Linus list of reasons like the amount of state are more interesting The state is required, not optional, if we are to have a decent basis for building asyncronous io into the kernel. > Networking wants something lighter rather than heavier. Adding tons of > base/limit pairs to kiobufs makes it worse not better I'm still not seeing what I consider valid arguments from the networking people regarding the use of kiobufs as the interface they present to the VFS for asynchronous/bulk io. I agree with their needs for a light weight mechanism for getting small io requests from userland, and even the need for using lightweight scatter gather lists within the network layer itself. If the statement is that map_user_kiobuf is too heavy for use on every single io, sure. But that is a seperate issue. -ben - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/