On Wed, 2 May 2007, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > > It simple as is, there is no need to overdesign. > > There is no reason to go with a limited, too-simple minded design if > we've already identified a much better design. The fact that poll is > used today does not excuse piling on more and more code which makes > additional functions which don't fit into the poll framework barely > work. Plus, poll/epoll itself is a problem. Is it? Please do tell me more... - Davide - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch 14/22] pollfs: pollable futex
- From: "Ulrich Drepper" <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 14/22] pollfs: pollable futex
- References:
- [patch 00/22] pollfs: filesystem abstraction for pollable objects
- From: Davi Arnaut <[email protected]>
- [patch 14/22] pollfs: pollable futex
- From: Davi Arnaut <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 14/22] pollfs: pollable futex
- From: "Ulrich Drepper" <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 14/22] pollfs: pollable futex
- From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 14/22] pollfs: pollable futex
- From: "Ulrich Drepper" <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 14/22] pollfs: pollable futex
- From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 14/22] pollfs: pollable futex
- From: "Ulrich Drepper" <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 14/22] pollfs: pollable futex
- From: Davi Arnaut <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 14/22] pollfs: pollable futex
- From: "Ulrich Drepper" <[email protected]>
- [patch 00/22] pollfs: filesystem abstraction for pollable objects
- Prev by Date: Re: 2.6.22 -mm merge plans
- Next by Date: Re: [linux-dvb] DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical points about ...)
- Previous by thread: Re: [patch 14/22] pollfs: pollable futex
- Next by thread: Re: [patch 14/22] pollfs: pollable futex
- Index(es):
 |