Re: epoll (was Re: [PATCH] async poll for 2.5)

From: Davide Libenzi (davidel@xmailserver.org)
Date: Tue Oct 22 2002 - 17:25:39 EST


On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Erich Nahum wrote:

> There is a third way, described in the original Banga/Mogul/Druschel
> paper, available via Dan Kegel's web site: extend the accept() call to
> return whether an event has already happened on that FD. That way you
> can service a ready FD without reading /dev/epoll or calling
> sigtimedwait, and you don't have to waste a read() call on the socket
> only to find out you got EAGAIN.
>
> Of course, this changes the accept API, which is another matter. But
> if we're talking a new API then there's no problem.

Why differentiate between connect and accept. At that point you should
also handle connect as a particular case, that's the point. And that's why
I like the API's rule to be consistent and I would not like to put inside
the kernel source code explicit event dispatch inside accept/connect.

- Davide

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 23 2002 - 22:01:01 EST