[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4638C37D.7050503@haxent.com.br>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 13:59:41 -0300
From: Davi Arnaut <davi@...ent.com.br>
To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...il.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 14/22] pollfs: pollable futex
Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> On 5/2/07, Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> wrote:
>> I understand your concerns, but *this* patch bundle extends
>> poll()/select()/epoll, and is not an alternative to kevent or other
>> work in progress, (and linux centered)
>
> It is adding huge amounts of complexity and at the same time is not
> future-safe. I consider this enough reason to reject this approach.
Huge amounts of complexity? It just _moves_ some futex code around!
The intended use is not for locking, but for event signaling. Why can't
it be future-safe? It just needs a address and a value! Pseudocode:
thread A:
int fd = plfutex(addr, 0);
do
poll(fdset+fd);
process network events
queue obj to thread B
if fd:
job processed
thread B:
wait_job();
process_job();
raise_event(addr);
> You never can get rid of the interface. It's much cleaner and safer
> to do it right instead of piling on more and more workarounds for
> special situations.
It simple as is, there is no need to overdesign.
--
Davi Arnaut
-
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