4 comments

  • PeterWhittaker30 minutes ago
    The asynchronous behaviour raises interesting questions as to whether or not this is a bug or working as intended, and whether or not the io_uring API should offer controls to allow the calling application to decide.<p>With synchronous intra-machine calls we mostly take it for granted that pending modifications die with the caller.<p>But with inter-machine communications we mostly take it for granted that the sending machine and its entire local area can disappear and operations it sent will complete.<p>Of course, there are exceptions, especially when APIs&#x2F;systems offer atomicity, consistency checks, etc.<p>But without express design intent, or preferably caller intent, one can argue both sides of the asynchronous intra-machine case and be right.<p>I guess my thinking isn&#x27;t so much that this happens as that it happens implicitly.
  • pianom4n2 hours ago
    The AI prose is painful.
    • collinstevens14 minutes ago
      you can just feel it in your bones<p><i>&gt; These are measured results backed by the Linux source, not a portable guarantee for every kernel, filesystem, device, or API called “AIO”.</i><p><i>&gt; The interesting race window is there, but hard to see. So I made it larger.</i>
  • blackoil1 hour ago
    Is your process Hindu, Buddhist, Christian?
  • charcircuit50 minutes ago
    I feel like this is a Linux bug. Linux shouldn&#x27;t cleanup a process until it has finished execution.