Martin Wilck wrote: > Although I had a relevant part in implementing the asynchronous IO in > winsock, I am not quite content with it because it is not really > asynchronous.
And not really high-performance, I bet (though I wouldn't know, I haven't looked at the code or tested it). > Alexandre is against using threads. Me, too. glibc uses threads to emulate aio, and the performance is poor. On platforms that natively support AIO, I bet you *really* want to implement Wine AIO using Posix AIO if you can. > On Linux at least, Ben > LaHaise's asyncio can be expected to become part of the > 2.6 kernel series, and if that happens the wine asynchronous IO > functionality should be rewritten to use the asyncio API on systems that > support it. Yes. Exactly. > (I still havent't figured out whether aio will support > sockets, though). It will. SGI's kaio does already, and Ben's will support it when he's finished. That should give good performance. - Dan p.s. Looks like the threads implementation for the 2.6 kernel will rock, too. See http://www.kegel.com/c10k.html#threaded (Somebody remind me why Wine has its own threads implementation again? Is it because the semantics are too different from Posix threads?)
