Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 15:41:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 15:41:32 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com ([204.127.202.62]:18581 "EHLO sccrmhc02.attbi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 15:41:32 -0400 Message-ID: <3DADC516.1050704@kegel.com> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 12:59:18 -0700 From: Dan Kegel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020830 X-Accept-Language: de-de, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Gardiner Myers CC: Davide Libenzi , Benjamin LaHaise , Shailabh Nagar , linux-kernel , linux-aio , Andrew Morton , David Miller , Linus Torvalds , Stephen Tweedie Subject: Re: [PATCH] async poll for 2.5 References: <3DAC9859.5060005@netscape.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 910 Lines: 19 John Gardiner Myers wrote: > Nonetheless, the requirement for user space to test the condition after > the registration, not before, is subtle. A program which does these in > the wrong order is still likely to pass QA and will fail in production > in a way that will be difficult to diagnose. There is no rational > reason for the kernel to not test the condition upon registration. As long as we agree that the kernel may provide spurious readiness notifications on occasion, I agree. Then /dev/epoll can easily fulfill this by signaling readiness on everything at registration; more accurate notifications could be added later as an optimization. - Dan - 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/