[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: aio-core why not using SuS? [Re: [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29)]
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 03:21:33PM +0100, Jamie Lokier 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.
> ... with the bonus that it fits comfortably into a sigtimedwait() loop
> that's waiting for non-AIO things too.

The idea was to make completion events as light weight as possible -- they
can be read from the queue without even entering kernel space. Support for
getting multiple completion events is also needed (sigtimed wait only pulls
one signal at a time). Nothing is stopping us from adding support to do
an async sigtimedwait that provides a completion event when a signal arrives.

"You will be reincarnated as a toad; and you will be much happier."
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.067 / U:1.152 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site