* drepper@xxxxxxxxx <drepper@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > For example, just to state the obvious: libaio has been written 8 years > > ago in 2002 and has been used in apps early on. Why arent those kernel > > APIs, while not being a full/complete solution, supported by glibc, and > > wrapped to pthreads based emulation on kernels that dont support it? > > You never looked at the glibc code in use and didn't read what I wrote > before. We do have an implementation of libaio using those interfaces. > They exist in the Fedora/RHEL glibc and are probably copied elsewhere, too. > The code is not upstream because it is not general enough. It simply > doesn't work in all situations. So it's good enough to be in Fedora/RHEL but not good enough to be in upstream glibc? How is that possible? Isnt that a double standard? Upstream libc presence is really what is needed for an API to be ubiquitous to apps. That is what 'closes the loop' in the the positive feedback cycle loop and creates real back pressure and demand on the kernel to get its act together. Again, i state it for the third time, the KAIO situation is mostly the kernel's fault. But glibc is certainly not being helpful in that situation either and your earlier claim that you are only waiting for the patches is rather dishonest. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
