From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:29:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:29:01 -0500 Received: from adsl-63-195-162-81.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([63.195.162.81]:30217 "EHLO master.linux-ide.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:28:47 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 14:26:32 -0800 (PST) From: Andre Hedrick To: Linus Torvalds cc: Manfred Spraul , Jens Axboe , Ben LaHaise , Ingo Molnar , "Stephen C. Tweedie" , Alan Cox , Steve Lord , Linux Kernel List , kiobuf-io-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [Kiobuf-io-devel] RFC: Kernel mechanism: Compound event wait In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Manfred Spraul wrote: > > > > > > The aio functions should NOT use READA/WRITEA. They should just use the > > > normal operations, waiting for requests. > > > > But then you end with lots of threads blocking in get_request() > > So? > > What the HELL do you expect to happen if somebody writes faster than the > disk can take? > > You don't lik ebusy-waiting. Fair enough. > > So maybe blocking on a wait-queue is the right thing? Just MAYBE? Did I miss a portion of the thread? Is the block layer ignoring the status of a device? --Andre - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/