[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f2b55d220702070137k58d99449g604ebb352ad84c69@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 01:37:17 -0800
From: "Michael K. Edwards" <medwards.linux@...il.com>
To: "Davide Libenzi" <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
"Kent Overstreet" <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Zach Brown" <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-aio@...ck.org, "Suparna Bhattacharya" <suparna@...ibm.com>,
"Benjamin LaHaise" <bcrl@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2 of 4] Introduce i386 fibril scheduling
An idiot using my keyboard wrote:
> - AIO requests that are serviced from cache ought to immediately
> invoke the callback, in the same thread context as the caller, fixing
> up the stack so that the callback returns to the instruction following
> the syscall. That way the "immediate completion" path through the
> callback can manipulate data structures, allocate memory, etc. just as
> if it had followed a synchronous call.
Or, of course:
if (async_stat(entry) == 0) {
... immediate completion code path ...
}
Ugh. But I think the discussion about the delayed path still holds.
- Michael
-
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