[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702051022170.14453@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:24:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-aio@...ck.org, Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@...ibm.com>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2 of 4] Introduce i386 fibril scheduling
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Zach Brown wrote:
> > Since I still think that the many-thousands potential async operations
> > coming from network sockets are better handled with a classical event
> > machanism [1], and since smooth integration of new async syscall into the
> > standard POSIX infrastructure is IMO a huge win, I think we need to have a
> > "bridge" to allow async completions being detectable through a pollable
> > (by the mean of select/poll/epoll whatever) device.
>
> Ugh, I'd rather not if we don't have to.
>
> It seems like you could get this behaviour from issuing a
> poll/select(really?)/epoll as one of the async calls to complete. (And you
> mention this in a later email? :))
Yes, no need for the above. We can just host a poll/epoll in an async()
operation, and demultiplex once that gets ready.
- Davide
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists