Actually, given that most likely we have quite a few ex-VMS hackers I am
that you have to explain or sell the idea of an async gate maybe you ought
to refer to the term as a QIO 8)
> > > 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
> 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
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message