[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45E5D217.9060101@nortel.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:03:51 -0600
From: "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@....com.au>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@...ibm.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/13] Syslets, "Threadlets", generic AIO support, v3
Davide Libenzi wrote:
> struct async_syscall {
> unsigned long nr_sysc;
> unsigned long params[8];
> long *result;
> };
>
> And what would async_wait() return bak? Pointers to "struct async_syscall"
> or pointers to "result"?
Either one has downsides. Pointer to struct async_syscall requires that
the caller keep the struct around. Pointer to result requires that the
caller always reserve a location for the result.
Does the kernel care about the (possibly rare) case of callers that
don't want to pay attention to result? If so, what about adding some
kind of caller-specified handle to struct async_syscall, and having
async_wait() return the handle? In the case where the caller does care
about the result, the handle could just be the address of result.
Chris
-
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