Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 16 Aug 2002 06:49:58 -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)] |
| |
Suparna Bhattacharya wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 04:53:06PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 12:03:34PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 03:09:46PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote: > > > > Also, wasn't the fact that the API was designed to support both POSIX > > > > and completion port style semantics, another reason for a different > > > > (lightweight) in-kernel api? The c10k users of aio are likely to find > > > > the latter model (i.e. completion ports) more efficient. > > > > > > if it's handy for you, can you post a link to the API defined by > > > POSIX and completion ports so I can read them too and not only SuS? > > > > Don't have anything handy atm that's any better than what you could > > get through doing a google on "IO Completion ports". (See section at > > the end of this note for some info) > > Oh sorry, I should have mentioned Dan Kegel's site which actually > has all the pointers you need. See http://www.kegel.com/c10k.html > (It has pointers to links to both NT and OS/400 completion ports)
but not yet the DAFS stuff, thanks, I'll link to that. - 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/
|  |