Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:30:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:30:33 -0500 Received: from 64-60-75-69.cust.telepacific.net ([64.60.75.69]:23816 "EHLO racerx.ixiacom.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:30:32 -0500 Message-ID: <3DBDBBD6.3010602@ixiacom.com> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 14:36:06 -0800 From: Dan Kegel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020615 Debian/1.0.0-3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dan Kegel CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Martin Waitz Subject: Re: [PATCH] epoll more scalable than poll References: <3DBDB33B.6000200@ixiacom.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: 937 Lines: 23 Dan Kegel wrote: > The idea of using the kqueue interface was discussed once before. See > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=97236943118139&w=2 > for Linus' opinion of kqueues (he doesn't like them much). Hang on - reading again, I wonder if the main reason he didn't like kqueue is because it allowed for multiple event queues (so libraries don't need to be tightly integrated into the main program, for instance). He preferred one queue and callbacks. However, I think Linus admitted later on that nobody liked his callback idea, so maybe he'd be receptive to the multiple event queue idea now. Um, I assume Ben's aio stuff allows multiple completion queues, right? - 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/