Re: [3/4] kevent: AIO, aio_sendfile() implementation.

[Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@us.ibm.com>]

Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>   
>>> My personal opinion on existing AIO is that it is not the right design.
>>> Benjamin LaHaise agree with me (if I understood him right),
>>>       
>> I completely agree with that aswell.
>>     
>
> I agree, too, but the current code is not the last of the line.  Suparna
> has a st of patches which make the current kernel aio code work much
> better and especially make it really usable to implement POSIX AIO.
>
> In Ottawa we were talking about submitting it and Suparna will.  We just
> thought about a little longer timeframe.  I guess it could be
> accelerated since he mostly has the patch done.  But I don't know her
> schedule.
>
> Important here is, don't base any decision on the current aio
> implementation.
>   
Ulrich,

Suparna mentioned your interest in making POSIX glibc aio work with 
kernel-aio at OLS.
We thought taking a re-look at the (kernel side) work BULL did, would be 
a nice starting
point. I re-based those patches to 2.6.18-rc2 and sent it to Zach Brown 
for review before
sending them out to list.

These patches does NOT make AIO any cleaner. All they do is add 
functionality to support
POSIX AIO easier. These are

[ PATCH 1/3 ]  Adding signal notification for event completion

[ PATCH 2/3 ]  lio (listio) completion semantics

[ PATCH 3/3 ] cancel_fd support

Suparna explained these in the following article:

http://lwn.net/Articles/148755/

If you think, this is a reasonable direction/approach for the kernel and 
you would take care
of glibc side of things - I can spend time on these patches, getting 
them to reasonable shape
and push for inclusion.

Please let us know.

Thanks,
Badari