Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422843AbXEDXkX (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 May 2007 19:40:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422782AbXEDXkW (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 May 2007 19:40:22 -0400 Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.238]:9859 "EHLO nz-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422843AbXEDXiW (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 May 2007 19:38:22 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=GuE55v2WTcUu3CM+7pQG5RRB+/vGDHUXTcusLWp5Aa4YzjCDs1hCbfClAsNN91ldvqxLYhc9LKbkRcoLGurldLuhVe50Aer2EZkK4Tvic4ffBAL1vTJVcRl7HcImlaY5DGWFxHjyebENs0JG7Il/8aiyZmL4ENotrsyTLBUwTvU= Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 16:38:21 -0700 From: "Ulrich Drepper" To: "Davide Libenzi" Subject: Re: [patch 14/22] pollfs: pollable futex Cc: "Davi Arnaut" , "Eric Dumazet" , "Andrew Morton" , "Linus Torvalds" , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070502052235.914764000@haxent.com.br> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1617 Lines: 32 On 5/4/07, Davide Libenzi wrote: > This is a pretty specific case, that is not very typical to find in the > usual common event loop dispatch application design. This is where you are very wrong. Yes, it's rare in the Unix world because non-trivial programs cannot implement this in most cases with the available infrastructure. But it is very common in other places and what is more, it makes a lot of sense. It gives you scalability with the size of the machines at no cost associated to reorganizing the program. > And if you *really* want your truly generic WaitForMultipleObjects > implementation, your only way is to base it on files. Files are our almost > perfect match to HANDLEs in our world. We have the basic infrastructure > already there. "basic", but not complete. And I never said that the implementation thye have is perfect, far from it. The concept is good and if we now can implement it, with all the event sources available, using an efficient event delivery mechanism we are far ahead of their design. The proposal now on the table doesn't bring us there all the way and it has the potential to make future work in the area of event delivery harder just because there is more legacy code to be kept happy. This is why I propose to not consider these changes and instead go for the gold, i.e., the full solution. - 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/