On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:19:59AM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote: > Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >> For aio we just need to add additional fields to an existing structure. > >> > >> So yeah, I'd be interested in that discussion as well. > > Sure, it's easy to start there, but then you eventually end up having to > add a non-aio interface as well. Let's not take the latter off the > table. I agree that a sync variant should't be ignored, but needing a sync interface with PI arguments also shouldn't get in the way of adding support to the aio+dio path. Simply because it's what people use :/. > I'm not sure how that's directly related to aio, but ok. If we're going > to rewrite the aio code, I think Zach's acall would be a good start, at > least on the API front: > http://lwn.net/Articles/316806/ Yeah, I'm happy to chat about this stuff if people are interested. I think I'd do things differently today than what was done in that aged acall prototype. - z -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
