mà den 04.04.2005 Klokka 12:22 (-0400) skreiv Benjamin LaHaise: > > Your approach looks reasonable and simple enough. It'd be useful if I > > could visualize the caller side of things as in the NFS client stream > > as you mention - do you plan to post that soon ? > > I'm tempted to think about the possibility of using your iosems > > with retry-based AIO. > > I'm not sure I see the point in adding yet another type of lock to the > kernel that has different infrastructure. This will end up with much > more code changing to adapt to the new iosems, rather than just using a > new primative on the existing semaphores.
The point is to avoid having to develop and test 23 different and highly arch-dependent (and hence non-maintainable) versions of the same code. In particular note that many of those architectures appear to be heavily over-optimized to directly inline assembly code as well as to use non-standard calling conventions. They all also manage somehow to differ w.r.t. spinlocking conventions and even w.r.t. the internal structures and algorithms used. IOW: the current semaphore implementations really all need to die, and be replaced by a single generic version to which it is actually practical to add new functionality. Failing that, it is _much_ easier to convert the generic code that needs to support aio to use a new locking implementation and then test that. It is not as if conversion to aio won't involve changes to the code in the area surrounding those locks anyway. Cheers, Trond -- Trond Myklebust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 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/