On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:19:59AM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Boaz Harrosh <bharr...@panasas.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> For aio we just need to add additional fields to an existing structure.
> >> 
> >> So yeah, I'd be interested in that discussion as well.
> 
> Sure, it's easy to start there, but then you eventually end up having to
> add a non-aio interface as well.  Let's not take the latter off the
> table.

I agree that a sync variant should't be ignored, but needing a sync
interface with PI arguments also shouldn't get in the way of adding
support to the aio+dio path.  Simply because it's what people use :/.

> I'm not sure how that's directly related to aio, but ok.  If we're going
> to rewrite the aio code, I think Zach's acall would be a good start, at
> least on the API front:
>   http://lwn.net/Articles/316806/

Yeah, I'm happy to chat about this stuff if people are interested.  I
think I'd do things differently today than what was done in that aged
acall prototype.

- z
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to