Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 18:43:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 18:43:02 -0400 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:36616 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 18:43:02 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 15:51:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Davide Libenzi cc: Hanna Linder , Benjamin LaHaise , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Subject: Re: [PATCH] sys_epoll system call interface to /dev/epoll In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1140 Lines: 28 On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > Linus, yesterday I was sugesting Hanna to use most of the existing code > and to make : > > int sys_epoll_create(int maxfds); > > to actually return an fd. Basically during this function call the code > allocates a file*, initialize it, allocates a free fd, maps the file* to > the fd, creates the vma* for the shared events area between the kernel and > user space, maps allocated kernel pages to the vma*, install the vma* and > returns the fd. But that's what her patch infrastructure seems to do. It's not just epoll_create(), it's all the other ioctl's too (unlink, remove etc). One queston is whether there is one epoll system call (that multiplexes, like in Hanna's patch) or many. I personally don't like multiplexing system calls - the system call number _is_ a multiplexor, I don't see the point of having multiple levels. Linus - 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/