From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Mar 4 19:45: 0 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from smtp02.primenet.com (smtp02.primenet.com [206.165.6.132]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E22C414D82 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 19:44:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr01.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp02.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24868; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 20:44:40 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr01.primenet.com(206.165.6.201) via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpd024837; Thu Mar 4 20:44:34 1999 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA24997; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 20:44:32 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199903050344.UAA24997@usr01.primenet.com> Subject: Re: lockf and kernel threads To: dyson@iquest.net Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 03:44:32 +0000 (GMT) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, dick@tar.com, jplevyak@inktomi.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199903020401.XAA62227@y.dyson.net> from "John S. Dyson" at Mar 1, 99 11:01:25 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > 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