Kev wrote:
>
> > The /dev/epoll patch is good, but the interface is different enough
> > from /dev/poll that ircd would need a new engine_epoll.c anyway.
> > (It would look like a cross between engine_devpoll.c and engine_rtsig.c,
> > as it would need to be notified by os_linux.c of any EWOULDBLOCK return values.
> > Both rtsigs and /dev/epoll only provide 'I just became ready' notification,
> > but no 'I'm not ready anymore' notification.)
>
> I don't understand what it is you're saying here. The ircu server uses
> non-blocking sockets, and has since long before EfNet and Undernet branched,
> so it already handles EWOULDBLOCK or EAGAIN intelligently, as far as I know.
Right. poll() and Solaris /dev/poll are programmer-friendly; they give
you the current readiness status for each socket. ircu handles them fine.
/dev/epoll and Linux 2.4's rtsig feature, on the other hand, are
programmer-hostile; they don't tell you which sockets are ready.
Instead, they tell you when sockets *become* ready;
your only indication that those sockets have become *unready*
is when you see an EWOULDBLOCK from them.
If this didn't make any sense, maybe seeing how it's used might help.
Look at Poller::clearReadiness() in
http://www.kegel.com/dkftpbench/doc/Poller.html#DOC.9.11 or
http://www.kegel.com/dkftpbench/dkftpbench-0.38/Poller_sigio.cc
and the calls to Poller::clearReadiness() in
http://www.kegel.com/dkftpbench/dkftpbench-0.38/ftp_client_pipe.cc
- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 07 2002 - 21:00:30 EST