| To: | Steven Whitehouse <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [patch] add iocb to network protocols |
| From: | Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 11 Oct 2002 06:27:09 -0400 |
| Cc: | davem@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <200210110931.KAA19428@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 10:31:23AM +0100 |
| References: | <20021010183528.A13432@xxxxxxxxxx> <200210110931.KAA19428@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5.1i |
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 10:31:23AM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> Given two aio requests, A and B both for the same socket, can I be sure
> that they will complete in the order that I submit them ? Can I also
> be sure that parts of the I/O request for A will not be mixed up with
> B ? Will that still be true if one of the requests is aio and one a "normal"
> send/recvmsg() for example ?
The POSIX standard does not seem to require any ordering between requests,
and some implementations take advantage of this by using threads to execute
requests. That said, providing intra request ordering for sockets is easy
to do, and is one of the guarantees I'm trying to make as it allows the
implementation to provide the same semantics as are required for things
like zero copy tx.
-ben
--
"Do you seek knowledge in time travel?"
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [patch] add iocb to network protocols, Steven Whitehouse |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | PATCH idea - netlink and link changes, Tim Hockin |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [patch] add iocb to network protocols, Steven Whitehouse |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [patch] add iocb to network protocols, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |