From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S932152AbWGZKPr@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932152AbWGZKPr (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Wed, 26 Jul 2006 06:15:47 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932151AbWGZKPr
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Wed, 26 Jul 2006 06:15:47 -0400
Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:5777 "EHLO
	pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S932098AbWGZKPq (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 26 Jul 2006 06:15:46 -0400
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:15:39 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: hch@infradead.org, johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       drepper@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [3/4] kevent: AIO, aio_sendfile() implementation.
Message-ID: <20060726101539.GA8711@infradead.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, drepper@redhat.com,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org
References: <1153905495613@2ka.mipt.ru> <11539054952574@2ka.mipt.ru> <20060726100431.GA7518@infradead.org> <20060726.031247.98341392.davem@davemloft.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20060726.031247.98341392.davem@davemloft.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from <hch@infradead.org> by pentafluge.infradead.org
	See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 03:12:47AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:04:31 +0100
> 
> > And to be honest, I don't think adding all this code is acceptable
> > if it can't replace the existing aio code while keeping the
> > interface.  So while you interface looks pretty sane the
> > implementation needs a lot of work still :)
> 
> Networking and disk AIO have significantly different needs.
> 
> Therefore, I really don't see it as reasonable to expect
> a merge of these two things.  It doesn't make any sense.

I'm not sure about that.  The current aio interface isn't exactly nice
for disk I/O either.  I'm more than happy to have a discussion about
that aspect.