Trond Myklebust writes: > It started from a desire to extend the existing implementations to > support new features such as asynchronous notification. Currently that > sort of thing is impossible unless your developer-super-powers include > the ability to herd 24 different subsystem maintainers into working > together on a solution.
Well, maybe the slow paths could be unified somewhat, and then these extra features could be added in the slow paths. I would support that. I certainly don't support replacing the current optimized fast-path implementations with a lowest-common-denominator thing like Ben was proposing. Paul.
