I wonder whether pushing the complexity of tevent into the VFS was a good idea?
realrichardsharpe at gmail.com
Sat Nov 10 11:05:34 MST 2012
I notice that there are now SMB_VFS_PREAD_SEND and SMB_VFS_PREAD_RECV
VFS interfaces to support AIO, which seems to push the complexity of
tevent into the VFS.
Wouldn't, say, an explicit callback model for such things have been
easier to handle for those who have to implement VFS modules?
By callback model, I mean that the AIO pread etc interfaces be handed
a callback, which could simply be aio_pread_smb1_done from the current
code (with some changes to remove the tevent dependencies.)
I guess I am trying to figure out what the benefits of the approach of
pushing complexity into the VFS are that outweighed the advantages of
a simpler model.
(Sigh, I am going to have to update the VFS document :-()
More information about the samba-technical