On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:02:31 -0400 Benjamin LaHaise <[email protected]> wrote:
> One of the major problems your changeset continues to carry is that your > new read_iter/write_iter operations permit blocking (implicitely), which > really isn't what we want for aio. If you're going to introduce a new api, > it should be made non-blocking, and enforce that non-blocking requirement It's been so incredibly long and I've forgotten everything AIO :( In this context, "non-blocking" means no synchronous IO, yes? Even for indirect blocks, etc. What about accidental D-state blockage in page reclaim, or against random sleeping locks? Also, why does this requirement exist? "99% async" is not good enough? How come? -- 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/
