Ulrich Drepper wrote:
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
It is exactly how previous ring buffer (in mapped area though) was
implemented.
Not any of those I saw. The one I looked at always started again at
index 0 to fill the ring buffer. I'll wait for the next implementation.
I like the two-pointer ring buffer approach, one pointer for the
consumer and one for the producer.
You don't want to have a channel like this. The userlevel code doesn't
know which threads are waiting in the kernel on the event queue. And it
Agreed.
You are still completely focused on AIO. We are talking here about a
new generic event handling. It is not tied to AIO. We will add all
Agreed.
As I said, relative timeouts are unable to cope with settimeofday calls
or ntp adjustments. AIO is certainly usable in situations where
timeouts are related to wall clock time.
I think we have lived with relative timeouts for so long, it would be
unusual to change now. select(2), poll(2), epoll_wait(2) all take
relative timeouts.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
