Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:07:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:07:12 -0400 Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([208.129.208.51]:53408 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:07:09 -0400 X-AuthUser: davidel@xmailserver.org Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:22:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@blue1.dev.mcafeelabs.com To: John Gardiner Myers cc: linux-aio , linux-kernel Subject: Re: async poll In-Reply-To: <3DB71A82.6070204@netscape.com> 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: 1044 Lines: 30 On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, John Gardiner Myers wrote: > Davide Libenzi wrote: > > >Why would you want to have a single fd simultaneously handled by two > >different threads with all the locking issues that would arise ? > > > You would not want this to happen. Thus you would want the poll > facility to somehow prevent returning event N+1 until after the thread > that got event N has somehow indicated that it has finished handling the > event. We're again looping talking about threads and fd being bounced between threads. It seems that we've very different opinions about the use of threads and how server applications should be designed. IMHO if you're thinking of bouncing fds among threads for their handling you're doing something somehow wrong, but this is just my opinion ... - Davide - 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/