On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 07:03:56AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 02:37:00PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > Honestly: I wouldn't bother. Nothing of consequence uses cancel.
> > >
> > > I have an RFC patch series that tears it out. Let me polish that up
> > > send it
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 02:20:51PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
>
> I sympathize, but the reality is that the current infrastructure
> is very bad and no one is using it.
>
> It's not like we're getting rid of the syscall. I'll be behaving
> exactly as it does today: returning the error code that
> And maybe the current way of doing things isn't the best way. But it
> would be nice if we didn't completely give up on the functionality of
> aio_cancel.
I sympathize, but the reality is that the current infrastructure
is very bad and no one is using it.
It's not like we're getting rid of
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 02:37:00PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > Honestly: I wouldn't bother. Nothing of consequence uses cancel.
> >
> > I have an RFC patch series that tears it out. Let me polish that up
> > send it out, I'll cc: you.
>
> Even better :)
>
> I've been looking at aio
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 02:37:00PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
Honestly: I wouldn't bother. Nothing of consequence uses cancel.
I have an RFC patch series that tears it out. Let me polish that up
send it out, I'll cc: you.
Even better :)
I've been looking at aio locking the past
And maybe the current way of doing things isn't the best way. But it
would be nice if we didn't completely give up on the functionality of
aio_cancel.
I sympathize, but the reality is that the current infrastructure
is very bad and no one is using it.
It's not like we're getting rid of the
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 02:20:51PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
I sympathize, but the reality is that the current infrastructure
is very bad and no one is using it.
It's not like we're getting rid of the syscall. I'll be behaving
exactly as it does today: returning the error code that
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 07:03:56AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 02:37:00PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
Honestly: I wouldn't bother. Nothing of consequence uses cancel.
I have an RFC patch series that tears it out. Let me polish that up
send it out, I'll cc:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 11:26:25AM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:39:17PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > Minor refactoring, to get rid of some duplicated code
>
> Honestly: I wouldn't bother. Nothing of consequence uses cancel.
>
> I have an RFC patch series that tears
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:39:17PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> Minor refactoring, to get rid of some duplicated code
Honestly: I wouldn't bother. Nothing of consequence uses cancel.
I have an RFC patch series that tears it out. Let me polish that up
send it out, I'll cc: you.
- z
--
To
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:39:17PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
Minor refactoring, to get rid of some duplicated code
Honestly: I wouldn't bother. Nothing of consequence uses cancel.
I have an RFC patch series that tears it out. Let me polish that up
send it out, I'll cc: you.
- z
--
To
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 11:26:25AM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:39:17PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
Minor refactoring, to get rid of some duplicated code
Honestly: I wouldn't bother. Nothing of consequence uses cancel.
I have an RFC patch series that tears it
12 matches
Mail list logo