On 03/11/2015 11:48 PM, Al Viro wrote: >> AIO interface should prefer AIO operations over iter_op > What the devil for? read_iter and write_iter *ARE* aio operations, as much > as soon to be removed aio_read and aio_write. And yes, those are going to > be removed very soon. That's fine. When those will get removed, then as part of the cleanup we can merge sock_read_iter() with sock_aio_read() and sock_write_iter() with sock_aio_write() and call sock_recvmsg()/sock_sendmsg() or sock->ops->aio_recvmsg()/sock->ops->aio_sendmsg based on if (is_sync_kiocb(iocb)) > > Note that ->read_iter() and ->write_iter() are getting iocb pointer passed > to them. It's just that socket instances are not passing it along to > ->sendmsg/->recvmsg anymore. and that's the main reason why I have added the sock_aio_read() and sock_aio_write() I didn't want to mess with the sock_read_iter() and sock_write_iter() for now. > > And why, in name of everything unholy, do your methods get redundant > total_len argument? It's iov_iter_count(&msg->msg_iter) (and in iov_iter-net > I have an inline helper doing that - enough places open-coding that thing). > If nothing else, ->sendmsg() and ->recvmsg() would benefit from removing > that argument as well. I have patches doing that, but iocb removal conflicts > with them and they need to be rebased to current net/master... You are right, it's not needed at all. I took the signatures from sendmsg() and recvmsg() and just added iocb. I will remove them in v2 if you want, or you can add it to your patches. -- 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
