Re: aio-core why not using SuS? [Re: [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29)]

[Suparna Bhattacharya]

On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 09:42:25PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> > Now reading the SuS specifications I also like less and less our current
> > kernel API of this sumbit_io, the SuS does exactly what I suggested
> > originally that is aio_read/aio_write/aio_fsync as separate calls. So
> > the merging effect mentioned by Ben cannot be taken advantage of by the
> > kernel anyways because userspace will issue separate calls for each
> > command.
> 
> Read it again.  You've totally missed lio_listio.  Also keep in mind what 
> 

Also, wasn't the fact that the API was designed to support both POSIX 
and completion port style semantics, another reason for a different 
(lightweight) in-kernel api? The c10k users of aio are likely to find 
the latter model (i.e.  completion ports) more efficient.

Regards
Suparna