From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH] add support for vectored and async I/O to all simple filesystems Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 09:29:04 -0700 Message-ID: <20051102162904.GK23749@parisc-linux.org> References: <20051101023656.GA23724@lst.de> <20051101192000.GB29542@mail.shareable.org> <20051101205745.GB27231@kvack.org> <20051102110630.GB30550@mail.shareable.org> <20051102162107.GA32755@kvack.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jamie Lokier , Christoph Hellwig , akpm@osdl.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:44735 "EHLO palinux.hppa") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965124AbVKBQ3H (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Nov 2005 11:29:07 -0500 To: Benjamin LaHaise Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051102162107.GA32755@kvack.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 11:21:07AM -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote: > On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 11:06:30AM +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote: > > So it means that any program that mustn't block, must now have a > > stupid kernel version check to make sure it avoids even trying aio > > system calls? I was under the impression that the right thing to do > > so far was try them, and when EINVAL is returned, use threads instead. > > Yes, that is correct. To be fair, the aio system calls were never _guaranteed_ to not block, were they? ISTR there were various corner cases that would still get your task blocking while doing an aio submission.