Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 19:17:33 -0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@gmail.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Refactoring asynchronous I/O Message-ID: <CAJ-Vmo=0ixXxO1uZTWA9=dUMTu2ULRji-vFPmct8Q=y3YdAP4g@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2793494.0Z1kBV82mT@ralph.baldwin.cx> References: <2793494.0Z1kBV82mT@ralph.baldwin.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 26 January 2016 at 17:39, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: [snip] > > Note that binding the AIO support to a new fileop does mean that the AIO code > now becomes mandatory (rather than optional). We could perhaps make the > system calls continue to be optional if people really need that, but the guts > of the code will now need to always be in the kernel. > > I'd like to hear what people think of this design. It needs some additional > cleanup before it is a commit candidate (and I'll see if I can't split it up > some more if we go this route). So this doesn't change the direct dispatch read/write to a block device, right? That strategy path is pretty damned cheap. Also, why's it become mandatory? I thought we had support for optional fileops... -a
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-Vmo=0ixXxO1uZTWA9=dUMTu2ULRji-vFPmct8Q=y3YdAP4g>