Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:06:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:06:21 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc03.attbi.com ([204.127.202.63]:50569 "EHLO sccrmhc03.attbi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:06:20 -0400 Message-ID: <3DB721B1.7090907@kegel.com> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:24:49 -0700 From: Dan Kegel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020830 X-Accept-Language: de-de, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Gardiner Myers CC: linux-aio , linux-kernel Subject: Re: async poll References: <3DB7083E.5030206@netscape.com> <3DB70D4C.4070802@kegel.com> <3DB7136E.8090205@netscape.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1008 Lines: 33 John Gardiner Myers wrote: > > Dan Kegel wrote: > >> In that situation, why not just add the fd to an epoll, and have the >> epoll deliver events through Ben's interface? > > > Because you might need to use the aio_data facility of the iocb > interface. Presumably epoll_add could be enhanced to let user specify a user data word. > Because you might want to keep the kernel from > simultaneously delivering two events for the same fd to two different > threads. You might want to use aio_write() for writes, and read() for reads, in which case you could tell epoll you're not interested in write readiness events. Then there'd be no double notification for reads or writes on same fd. It's a bit contrived, but I can imagine it being useful. - Dan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/