Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 14:46:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 14:46:41 -0400 Received: from mtao-m01.ehs.aol.com ([64.12.52.73]:38108 "EHLO mtao-m01.ehs.aol.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 14:46:39 -0400 Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 11:52:31 -0700 From: "John G. Myers" Subject: Re: epoll (was Re: [PATCH] async poll for 2.5) In-reply-to: <005c01c2770e$ba9cf050$0e00000a@turchodog> To: Tervel Atanassov Cc: "'Benjamin LaHaise'" , "'linux-kernel'" , "'linux-aio'" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.546) 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: 918 Lines: 22 On Friday, October 18, 2002, at 06:27 PM, Tervel Atanassov wrote: > The code you have > below seems a bit awkward -- the line while(do_io(fd) != EAGAIN) > appears > twice. I think the reason for that is that you're trying to do too > many > things at once, namely, you're trying to handle both the initial > accept/setup of the socket and its steady state servicing. I don't see > any benefit to that -- it definitely doesn't make for cleaner code. > Why > not do things separately. If you carefully reread the message you replied to, you will see that this is exactly what I am proposing. The redundant copy of the line you consider awkward would be removed. - 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/