On Monday 26 February 2007 12:54 am, Sarah Bailey wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 08:53:03AM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> > On Sunday 25 February 2007 12:57 am, Sarah Bailey wrote:
> > > I haven't seen any evidence that the kernel-side aio is substantially
> > > more efficient than the GNU libc
On Monday 26 February 2007 12:54 am, Sarah Bailey wrote:
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 08:53:03AM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
On Sunday 25 February 2007 12:57 am, Sarah Bailey wrote:
I haven't seen any evidence that the kernel-side aio is substantially
more efficient than the GNU libc
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 12:54:31AM -0800, Sarah Bailey wrote:
> Yes, a sane interface to the USRP was one of the main motivations for
> the new USB filesystem. It remains to be seen whether we need a
> non-standard interface like io_submit, or whether threads with blocking
> I/O is fast enough
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 08:53:03AM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> On Sunday 25 February 2007 12:57 am, Sarah Bailey wrote:
> > I haven't seen any evidence that the kernel-side aio is substantially
> > more efficient than the GNU libc implementation,
>
> Face it: spawning a new thread is
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 08:53:03AM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
On Sunday 25 February 2007 12:57 am, Sarah Bailey wrote:
I haven't seen any evidence that the kernel-side aio is substantially
more efficient than the GNU libc implementation,
Face it: spawning a new thread is fundamentally
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 12:54:31AM -0800, Sarah Bailey wrote:
Yes, a sane interface to the USRP was one of the main motivations for
the new USB filesystem. It remains to be seen whether we need a
non-standard interface like io_submit, or whether threads with blocking
I/O is fast enough and
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 11:51:46AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > This deserves to be discussed on LKML.
>
> Are you sure? I thought it already got pretty well answered on the USB
> mailing list (see David's response for one such response.)
Well, I was sure
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 11:51:46AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> This deserves to be discussed on LKML.
Are you sure? I thought it already got pretty well answered on the USB
mailing list (see David's response for one such response.)
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
[ Since Alan forwarded part the original question to LKML ... if you
follow up, please adjust CC's appropriately ]
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] usbfs2: Why asynchronous I/O?
Date: Sunday 25 February 2007 8:53 am
From: David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTEC
.net
Subject: [linux-usb-devel] usbfs2: Why asynchronous I/O?
I've been doing some research into how asynchronous I/O is implemented,
and I'm beginning to doubt the usefulness of implementing aio_read
and aio_write in usbfs2. More detail on what I've learned can be found
at http://wiki.cs
[ Since Alan forwarded part the original question to LKML ... if you
follow up, please adjust CC's appropriately ]
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] usbfs2: Why asynchronous I/O?
Date: Sunday 25 February 2007 8:53 am
From: David Brownell [EMAIL PROTECTED
: [linux-usb-devel] usbfs2: Why asynchronous I/O?
I've been doing some research into how asynchronous I/O is implemented,
and I'm beginning to doubt the usefulness of implementing aio_read
and aio_write in usbfs2. More detail on what I've learned can be found
at http://wiki.cs.pdx.edu/usb
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 11:51:46AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
This deserves to be discussed on LKML.
Are you sure? I thought it already got pretty well answered on the USB
mailing list (see David's response for one such response.)
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 11:51:46AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
This deserves to be discussed on LKML.
Are you sure? I thought it already got pretty well answered on the USB
mailing list (see David's response for one such response.)
Well, I was sure at the
14 matches
Mail list logo
