On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> >
> > Here we very much agree. The way I'd like it:
> >
> > struct async_syscall {
> > unsigned long nr_sysc;
> > unsigned long params[8];
> > long result;
> > };
>
> No, the "result" needs to go somewhere else. The caller may be totally
> uninterested in keeping the system call number or parameters around until
> the operation completes, but if you put them in the same structure with
> the result, you obviously cannot sanely get rid of them.
>
> I also don't much like read-write interfaces (which the above would be:
> the kernel would read most of the structure, and then write one member of
> the structure).
>
> It's entirely possible, for example, that the operation we submit is some
> legacy "aio_read()", which has soem other structure layout than the new
> one (but one field will be the result code).
Ok, makes sense. Something like this then?
struct async_syscall {
unsigned long nr_sysc;
unsigned long params[8];
long *result;
};
And what would async_wait() return bak? Pointers to "struct async_syscall"
or pointers to "result"?
- Davide
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
