Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:11:53 -0700 | From | Dan Kegel <> | Subject | Re: aio-core why not using SuS? [Re: [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re:async-io API registration for 2.5.29)] |
| |
John Gardiner Myers wrote: > > Dan Kegel wrote: > > >You can actually consider posix AIO using sigtimedwait() to pick up completion > >notices to fit the definition of completion port if you squint a bit. > > > Except that signal queues are far too short to be useful for c10k. It's > also not possible to allocate a queue (signal number) in a thread safe > manner. > > Posix AIO is a horrid interface. Ben has done much better.
You're quite right. Still, posix AIO with sigtimedwait() might be enough prior art to invalidate Microsoft's patent on completion ports.
- 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/
| |