Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751641AbWKCIns (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Nov 2006 03:43:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751968AbWKCIns (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Nov 2006 03:43:48 -0500 Received: from relay.2ka.mipt.ru ([194.85.82.65]:1998 "EHLO 2ka.mipt.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751641AbWKCInq (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Nov 2006 03:43:46 -0500 Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 11:42:41 +0300 From: Evgeniy Polyakov To: Nate Diller Cc: LKML , Oleg Verych , Pavel Machek , David Miller , Ulrich Drepper , Andrew Morton , netdev , Zach Brown , Christoph Hellwig , Chase Venters , Johann Borck Subject: Re: [take22 0/4] kevent: Generic event handling mechanism. Message-ID: <20061103084240.GB1184@2ka.mipt.ru> References: <1162380963981@2ka.mipt.ru> <20061101130614.GB7195@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20061101132506.GA6433@2ka.mipt.ru> <20061101160551.GA2598@elf.ucw.cz> <20061101162403.GA29783@2ka.mipt.ru> <20061101185745.GA12440@2ka.mipt.ru> <5c49b0ed0611011812w8813df3p830e44b6e87f09f4@mail.gmail.com> <20061102062158.GC5552@2ka.mipt.ru> <5c49b0ed0611021140u360342f2v1e83c73d03eea329@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5c49b0ed0611021140u360342f2v1e83c73d03eea329@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.7.5 (2ka.mipt.ru [0.0.0.0]); Fri, 03 Nov 2006 11:42:42 +0300 (MSK) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1976 Lines: 40 On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 11:40:43AM -0800, Nate Diller (nate.diller@gmail.com) wrote: > Are you saying that the *only* reason we choose not to be > source-compatible with BSD is the 32 bit userland on 64 bit arch > problem? I've followed every thread that gmail 'kqueue' search I.e. do you want that generic event handling mechanism would not work on x86_64? I doubt you do. > returns, which thread are you referring to? Nicholas Miell, in "The > Proposed Linux kevent API" thread, seems to think that there are no > advantages over kqueue to justify the incompatibility, an argument you > made no effort to refute. I've also read the Kevent wiki at > linux-net.osdl.org, but it too is lacking in any direct comparisons > (even theoretical, let alone benchmarks) of the flexibility, > performance, etc. between the two. > > I'm not arguing that you've done a bad design, I'm asking you to brag > about the things you improved on vs. kqueue. Your emphasis on > unifying all the different event types into one interface is really > cool, fill me in on why that can't be effectively done with the kqueue > compatability and I also will advocate for kevent inclusion. kqueue just can not be used as is in Linux (_maybe_ *bsd has different types, not those which I found in /usr/include in my FC5 and Debian distro). It will not work on x86_64 for example. Some kind of a pointer or unsigned long in structures which are transferred between kernelspace and userspace is so much questionable, than it is much better even do not see there... (if I would not have so political correctness, I would describe it in a much different words actually). So, kqueue API and structures can not be usd in Linux. > NATE -- Evgeniy Polyakov - 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/