> >
> > Why not support something like the async-iocb?
>
> You could, but that would tie copyfile() to the aio interface which was
> one of the things that I believe Al was opposed to when we discussed
> this at LSF/MM-2010.
>
virtualization vendors who support this offload do it at a layer above the guest-OS(Intra-LUN(tm) locking or whatever fancy locking). So I think 'copyfile' is going to be appealing to application-developers more than the hypervisor-vendors.
So let's think about it from end-users perspective:
Won't everyone replicate code to check - 'Am I done'? It will just make application folks write more (ugly)code. Because you would then have to maintain another queue/etc to check for this operation.
We can just support full-copy. Partial copies can be returned as failure.
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{������ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
