On 03/10/2015 09:06 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Ying Xue <ying.xue@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:18:01 +0800 > >> Sorry, I did not realize the case when I created the commit. However, although I >> don't understand its scenario, in my opinion, adding one redundant argument for >> all sockets to satisfy the special case seems unreasonable for us. > > And the AIO socket mechanism was buggy and references freed up stack > objects. > > That whole set of problems would need to be addressed fully before > we could even think of adding AIO support back to the socket layer. > Maybe we can add new sock_aio_read_iter() and sock_aio_write_iter() functions in socket.c, and set the aio_read() and aio_write() ptrs to these in the socket_file_ops struct. Then we can add new async_sendmsg() and async_recvmsg() to struct proto_ops that will still take the struct kiocb. These new async_sendmsg() and async_recvmsg() functions will be called from the sock_aio_read_iter() and sock_aio_write_iter()? Do you want me to put a patch together? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
