From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [3/4] kevent: AIO, aio_sendfile() implementation. Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:15:39 +0100 Message-ID: <20060726101539.GA8711@infradead.org> References: <1153905495613@2ka.mipt.ru> <11539054952574@2ka.mipt.ru> <20060726100431.GA7518@infradead.org> <20060726.031247.98341392.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: hch@infradead.org, johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, drepper@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:5777 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932098AbWGZKPq (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jul 2006 06:15:46 -0400 To: David Miller Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060726.031247.98341392.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 03:12:47AM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Christoph Hellwig > Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:04:31 +0100 > > > And to be honest, I don't think adding all this code is acceptable > > if it can't replace the existing aio code while keeping the > > interface. So while you interface looks pretty sane the > > implementation needs a lot of work still :) > > 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.