From: Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com>
To: Paul Winalski <paul.winalski@gmail.com>
Cc: TUHS main list <tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
Subject: Re: [TUHS] non-blocking IO
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 15:23:20 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAC20D2Mttmiz1PDgOFYwF5AepZe5-p8myScsqBVSWfvCoY5oiQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABH=_VSWNR1Zw-W=ZSJ9OO3E9e5dqtr_E=ohCsvqW-=C7zFebQ@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 846 bytes --]
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 2:58 PM Paul Winalski <paul.winalski@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I think that's a very good question. It's analogous to
> record-oriented I/O vs. byte stream I/O. It's easy to build
> record-oriented I/O on top of a byte stream, but it's a real bear to
> do it the other way around. Similarly, it's easy to build synchronous
> I/O on top of asynchronous I/O but the reverse ends up looking contrived.
>
Which was exactly the point I tried to make in the POSIX.4 discussions, but
it does take more work in the basic housekeeping and you need a way to
handle events and completions that are priority based, queued, and a few
other details. As Doug said, they stayed away from some features (like
messaging). async I/O was one of them.
But as I said, Ken, Dennis and the rest of the crew did an amazing job with
very little.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1575 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-02 19:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-02 14:19 Paul Ruizendaal
2020-06-02 17:45 ` Paul Winalski
2020-06-02 17:59 ` arnold
2020-06-02 18:53 ` Paul Winalski
2020-06-02 19:18 ` Clem Cole
2020-06-02 21:15 ` Lawrence Stewart
2020-06-02 22:03 ` [TUHS] non-blocking IO - threads Jon Steinhart
2020-06-02 23:05 ` Rob Pike
2020-06-02 23:09 ` Rob Pike
2020-06-02 23:21 ` Larry McVoy
2020-06-03 0:39 ` Rob Pike
2020-06-02 23:12 ` Jon Steinhart
2020-06-03 16:42 ` Paul Winalski
2020-06-03 17:57 ` Jon Forrest
2020-06-03 5:38 ` [TUHS] Unix on the Arpanet Lars Brinkhoff
2020-06-03 12:23 ` Lawrence Stewart
2020-06-02 18:23 ` [TUHS] non-blocking IO Dan Cross
2020-06-02 18:56 ` Paul Winalski
2020-06-02 19:23 ` Clem Cole [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2020-06-06 13:29 Noel Chiappa
2020-06-02 20:13 Noel Chiappa
2020-06-02 20:43 ` Clem Cole
2020-06-02 22:14 ` Rich Morin
2020-06-03 16:31 ` Paul Winalski
2020-06-03 19:19 ` John P. Linderman
2020-06-02 8:22 Paul Ruizendaal
2020-06-02 0:08 Noel Chiappa
2020-06-01 23:17 Noel Chiappa
2020-05-31 11:09 Paul Ruizendaal
2020-05-31 16:05 ` Clem Cole
2020-05-31 16:46 ` Warner Losh
2020-05-31 22:01 ` Rob Pike
2020-06-01 3:32 ` Dave Horsfall
2020-06-01 14:58 ` Larry McVoy
2020-06-04 9:04 ` Peter Jeremy
2020-06-04 14:19 ` Warner Losh
2020-06-04 16:34 ` Tony Finch
2020-06-04 16:50 ` Larry McVoy
2020-06-05 16:00 ` Dan Cross
2020-06-12 8:18 ` Dave Horsfall
2020-06-01 16:58 ` Heinz Lycklama
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAC20D2Mttmiz1PDgOFYwF5AepZe5-p8myScsqBVSWfvCoY5oiQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=clemc@ccc.com \
--cc=paul.winalski@gmail.com \
--cc=tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).