[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200701160022.38492.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:22:35 -0800
From: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To: Nate Diller <nate.diller@...il.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Kenneth W Chen <kenneth.w.chen@...el.com>,
linux-aio@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nate Diller <nate@...mi.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com,
Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@...ibm.com>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
xfs-masters@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 0/10][RFC] aio: make struct kiocb private
On Monday 15 January 2007 8:25 pm, Nate Diller wrote:
> I don't think we should be waiting on sync I/O
> at the *top* of the call stack, like with wait_on_sync_kiocb(), I'd
> say the best place to wait is at the *bottom*, down in the I/O
> scheduler.
Erm ... *what* I/O scheduler? These I/O requests may go directly
to the end of the hardware I/O queue, which already has an I/O model
where each request can correspond directly to a KIOCB. And which
does not include any synchronous primitives.
No such scheduler has previously been, or _should_ be, required.
-
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