Re: [PATCH] aio updates

[John Gardiner Myers <jgmyers@netscape.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 998 bytes --]

Benjamin LaHaise wrote:

>My 
>concern is that the way you've implemented NOOP does not allow for all 
>possible return codes to be passed in due to the error checking the 
>iocb submit code performs on the inputs.
>
Could you provide an example of a possible return code that cannot be 
passed in?  I know you can't pass a 64 bit return code on a 32 bit 
platform, but then neither can any other operation.

>It can also spuriously fail 
>if the filedescriptor field points to an fd that doesn't exist,
>
Currently the operation requires a valid fd just like every other 
operation does, so I don't consider such a failure to be spurious.

The alternative is to change the aio framework itself to support 
operations that don't work on fds.  That would move the fget() call and 
the overflow check to below where it sets req->ki_user_data.  The check 
for IOCB_CMD_NOOP would then go before the fget() call and overflow check.

If you think this is the way to go, I can code up patch to do this.


[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3537 bytes --]