From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161035AbWGZUV0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:21:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161034AbWGZUV0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:21:26 -0400 Received: from iriserv.iradimed.com ([69.44.168.233]:8401 "EHLO iradimed.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161031AbWGZUVZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:21:25 -0400 Message-ID: <44C7CED0.5020509@cfl.rr.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:21:36 -0400 From: Phillip Susi User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christoph Hellwig , David Miller , johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, drepper@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [3/4] kevent: AIO, aio_sendfile() implementation. References: <1153905495613@2ka.mipt.ru> <11539054952574@2ka.mipt.ru> <20060726100431.GA7518@infradead.org> <20060726.031247.98341392.davem@davemloft.net> <20060726101539.GA8711@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20060726101539.GA8711@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jul 2006 20:21:36.0574 (UTC) FILETIME=[182B5DE0:01C6B0F1] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-7.2.0.1122-3.52.1006-14592.000 X-TM-AS-Result: No--2.100000-5.000000-31 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> Networking and disk AIO have significantly different needs. >> >> Therefore, I really don't see it as reasonable to expect >> a merge of these two things. It doesn't make any sense. > > I'm not sure about that. The current aio interface isn't exactly nice > for disk I/O either. I'm more than happy to have a discussion about > that aspect. > I agree that it makes perfect sense for a merger because aio and networking have very similar needs. In both cases, the caller hands the kernel a buffer and wants the kernel to either fill it or consume it, and to be able to do so asynchronously. You also want to maximize performance in both cases by taking advantage of zero copy IO. I wonder though, why do you say the current aio interface isn't nice for disk IO? It seems to work rather nicely to me, and is much better than the posix aio interface.