Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:06:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:06:15 -0500 Received: from perninha.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.156]:45582 "EHLO perninha.conectiva.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:06:08 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:16:33 -0200 (BRST) From: Marcelo Tosatti To: Linus Torvalds cc: Manfred Spraul , Jens Axboe , Ben LaHaise , Ingo Molnar , "Stephen C. Tweedie" , Alan Cox , Steve Lord , Linux Kernel List , kiobuf-io-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [Kiobuf-io-devel] RFC: Kernel mechanism: Compound event wait 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 Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Manfred Spraul wrote: > > Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > > > > Several kernel functions need a "dontblock" parameter (or a callback, or > > > > a waitqueue address, or a tq_struct pointer). > > > > > > We don't even need that, non-blocking is implicitly applied with READA. > > > > > READA just returns - I doubt that the aio functions should poll until > > there are free entries in the request queue. > > The aio functions should NOT use READA/WRITEA. They should just use the > normal operations, waiting for requests. The things that makes them > asycnhronous is not waiting for the requests to _complete_. Which you can > already do, trivially enough. Reading write(2): EAGAIN Non-blocking I/O has been selected using O_NONBLOCK and there was no room in the pipe or socket connected to fd to write the data immediately. I see no reason why "aio function have to block waiting for requests". _Why_ they do ? - 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/