On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 03:09:43PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote: > On Jul 24, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Sarah Sharp wrote: > > >When an AIO operation is cancelled > > So, the sad story is that the cancellation support in fs/aio.c is a > mess. Before we get lost on those details can we talk about simply > not allowing cancelation of these usbfs2 aio read requests? If they > guarantee forward progress then you can just do what dio does. Don't > set ki_cancel, they'll eventually complete.
If the cancellation code is such a mess, why not include a comment saying so, or remove it? > >I'd love to ditch the in-kernel AIO and use syslets instead, but Greg > >won't accept my usbfs2 patches until I've implemented AIO, and I don't > >want to keep waiting. > > Why is he requiring AIO support? If it's just binary compatibility, > you might get away with supporting the ABI but servicing the requests > synchronously. Maybe? usbfs2 is a completely new thing, so we're not worried about binary compatibility. We need AIO specifically so we can overlap requests to an endpoint and saturate the bus. Could you comment on how syslets or fibrels would handle transfer requests when the file position is ignored? I'm very interested in ditching in-kernel AIO. Sarah
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
