Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Tue, 9 Oct 2012 15:32:10 -0700 | From | Zach Brown <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/5] aio: vmap ringbuffer |
| |
> If it is measurable I'll take another stab at using memory from > __get_free_pages() for the ringbuffer. That really would be the ideal > solution.
No, then you'll run into high order allocation failures with rings that don't fit in a single page.
> The other reason I wanted to do this was for the aio attributes stuff - > for return values, I think the only sane way is for the return values to > go in the ringbuffer, which means records are no longer fixed size so > dealing with pages is even more of a pain.
Then let's see that, please.
And can we please stop calling them attributes? They're inputs and outputs that change behaviour -- they're interfaces.
And no, just for the record, I don't think generic packed variable size structs are worth the trouble.
If we're going to do a generic interface extension mechanism then we should put it in its own well thought out system calls, not staple it on to the side of aio because it's there. It's a really crummy base to work from.
- z
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |