Re: RFC 310 (v1) Ordered bytecode

[Dan Sugalski]

At 11:53 PM 9/26/00 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
>now what bothers me is that all those calls are in section 3 and are no
>section 2 system calls. maybe it is faked with threads but i haven't
>found any support for that notion. if so, i wonder if we can actually
>use it and not collide with perl threads?

Sure, that's not a problem.

I don't much care how its faked (if it is) as long as it works. Might not 
be as efficient as full kernel support for async I/O, but it'll do. At 
least there's some overlap. (You can get better device request ordering and 
do I/O coalescing if you have more than one request handy)

It wouldn't entirely surprise me to find these were done with threads now, 
but in a rev or two the kernel did it 'right'.

                                        Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk