[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [23]   [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)]
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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.168 / U:6.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site