Subject: Re: letting userland issue FUA writes
To: Jason Thorpe <email@example.com>
From: Daniel Carosone <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/20/2006 14:15:17
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 07:07:06PM -0800, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> Since we are adding flags, the "p"/"non-p*" variants collapse into a flag=
> being set or cleared. :-)
Yeah, that was my assumption too.
> My question was if we want both iovec and non-iovec versions.
I'm thinking a readx/writex that take an iovec and flags.
Then all the previous interfaces can be implemented internally in
terms of readx/writex (p/non-p as a flag, non-iovec as a
single synthesised iovec, etc) if worthwhile.
Worth thinking ahead of what other flags we might want, and what they
might imply for the interface of the new iovec structure...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----