From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin LaHaise Subject: Re: [patch] add iocb to network protocols Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 06:27:09 -0400 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20021011062709.A14784@redhat.com> References: <20021010183528.A13432@redhat.com> <200210110931.KAA19428@gw.chygwyn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: davem@redhat.com, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Steven Whitehouse Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200210110931.KAA19428@gw.chygwyn.com>; from steve@gw.chygwyn.com on Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 10:31:23AM +0100 Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 10:31:23AM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote: > Given two aio requests, A and B both for the same socket, can I be sure > that they will complete in the order that I submit them ? Can I also > be sure that parts of the I/O request for A will not be mixed up with > B ? Will that still be true if one of the requests is aio and one a "normal" > send/recvmsg() for example ? The POSIX standard does not seem to require any ordering between requests, and some implementations take advantage of this by using threads to execute requests. That said, providing intra request ordering for sockets is easy to do, and is one of the guarantees I'm trying to make as it allows the implementation to provide the same semantics as are required for things like zero copy tx. -ben -- "Do you seek knowledge in time travel?"