On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 10:23:49PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> Interesting approach - using ki_wait.private for this.
> Could we make aio_down take a wait queue parameter as well instead of
> the iocb ?
Hmmm, I guess there might be instances where someone has to wait on
multiple wait queues. Will add that to the next version of the patch.
> Need to think a little about impact on io cancellation.
It should be possible to cancel semaphore operations fairly easily --
the aio_down function can set ->ki_cancel to point to a semaphore cancel
routine. I'll give coding that a try.
> BTW, is the duplication of functions across architectures still needed ? I
> thought that one of advantages of implementing a separate aio_down
> routine vs modifiying down to become retryable was to get away from
> that ... or wasn't it ?
Good point. The fast path for down() will probably need to remain a
separate function, but we could well unify the code with the
down_interruptible() codepath.
> Meanwhile, I probably need to repost my aio_wait_bit patches - there
> may be some impact here.
Sure -- any version of those would be useful to build on. Cheers!
-ben
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
