Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 03:44:32 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: dyson@iquest.net Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, dick@tar.com, jplevyak@inktomi.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: lockf and kernel threads Message-ID: <199903050344.UAA24997@usr01.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199903020401.XAA62227@y.dyson.net> from "John S. Dyson" at Mar 1, 99 11:01:25 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > IMO, the Linux threading, in particular, and the POSIX aio and thread > > interfaces, in general, represents a bunch of ill-thought-out hacks > > on hacks by the respective Linux and POSIX responsible persons. The > > Linux hacks were by people who didn't know better, and the POSIX > > hacks were political by people who did know better, but didn't have > > the courage of their convictions. It is time for some considered > > design. > > The AIO api has to be implemented for legitimacy, and likewise the > threading. In fact, the AIO API is quite useful. It doesn't have to be implemented in kernel space. An async call gate could all you to implement POSIX AIO in user space, at the same time not buying into the POSIX error of implementing only a few calls as asynchronous. Don't you agree that it's moronic that I can't, for example, do an asynchronous bind(2)? What about an asynchronous SYSV IPC message send or receive? From a kernel perspective, POSIX is an old coat, which you leave lying around in user space, but which you don't wear into the shower with you (kernel space). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199903050344.UAA24997>