Re: [patch 14/22] pollfs: pollable futex

[Davi Arnaut]

Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> On 5/2/07, Eric Dumazet <dada1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I understand your concerns, but *this* patch bundle extends 
> > poll()/select()/epoll, and is not an alternative to kevent or other 
> > work in progress, (and linux centered)
>
> It is adding huge amounts of complexity and at the same time is not
> future-safe.  I consider this enough reason to reject this approach.
Huge amounts of complexity? It just _moves_ some futex code around!
The intended use is not for locking, but for event signaling. Why can't
it be future-safe? It just needs a address and a value! Pseudocode:

thread A:
   int fd = plfutex(addr, 0);
   do
       poll(fdset+fd);
       process network events
       queue obj to thread B
       if fd:
           job processed

thread B:
   wait_job();
   process_job();
   raise_event(addr);
> You never can get rid of the interface.  It's much cleaner and safer
> to do it right instead of piling on more and more workarounds for
> special situations.
It simple as is, there is no need to overdesign.

--
Davi Arnaut
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/