Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Dec 2001 03:49:42 -0800 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: aio |
| |
On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 11:44:05AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > we need a sane interface that covers *all* sorts of IO, not just sockets. > I used to have exactly the same optinion as you have now, but now i'd like > to have a common async IO interface that will cover network IO, block IO > [or graphics IO, or whatever comes up]. We should have something saner and > more explicit than a side-branch of fcntl() handling the socket fasync > code.
I second this wholeheartedly. And I believe there are still more motivations for providing asynchronous interfaces for all I/O in the realm of assisting the userland:
(1) It would simplify the ways applications have and the kernel overhead of responding to user input while I/O is in progress.
(2) It would provide a more efficient way to do M:N threading than watchdogs and nonblocking poll/select in itimers.
Cheers, Bill - 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/
| |