Re: aio-core why not using SuS? [Re: [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29)]

Dan Kegel
2002-08-16T13:41:01Z

Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 04:53:06PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 12:03:34PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 03:09:46PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> > > > Also, wasn't the fact that the API was designed to support both POSIX
> > > > and completion port style semantics, another reason for a different
> > > > (lightweight) in-kernel api? The c10k users of aio are likely to find
> > > > the latter model (i.e. completion ports) more efficient.
> > >
> > > if it's handy for you, can you post a link to the API defined by
> > > POSIX and completion ports so I can read them too and not only SuS?
> >
> > Don't have anything handy atm that's any better than what you could
> > get through doing a google on "IO Completion ports". (See section at
> > the end of this note for some info)
>
> Oh sorry, I should have mentioned Dan Kegel's site which actually
> has all the pointers you need. See http://www.kegel.com/c10k.html
> (It has pointers to links to both NT and OS/400 completion ports)

but not yet the DAFS stuff, thanks, I'll link to that.
- Dan