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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 2 Jan 2007 16:18:40 -0900
From:	"Kent Overstreet" <>
To:	"Zach Brown" <>
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.

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

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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists