| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 16:18:40 -0900 From: "Kent Overstreet" <kent.overstreet@...il.com> To: "Zach Brown" <zach.brown@...cle.com> Cc: linux-aio@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Heads up on a series of AIO patchsets > > Any details? > > Well, one path I tried I couldn't help but post a blog entry about > for my friends. I'm not sure it's the direction I'll take with linux- > kernel, but the fundamentals are there: the api should be the > syscall interface, and there should be no difference between sync and > async behaviour. > > http://www.zabbo.net/?p=72 Any code you're willing to let people play with? I could at least have real test cases, and a library to go along with it as it gets finished. Another pie in the sky idea: One thing that's been bugging me lately (working on a 9p server), is sendfile is hard to use in practice because you need packet headers and such, and they need to go out at the same time. Sendfile listio support would fix this, but it's not a general solution. What would be really usefull is a way to say that a certain batch of async ops either all succeed or all fail, and happen atomically; i.e., transactions for syscalls. Probably even harder to do than general async syscalls, but it'd be the best thing since sliced bread... and hey, it seems the logical next step. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists