lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jan]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: User vs. Kernel (was: To be smug, or not to be smug, that is , the question)
Date
> The original poster said "generalized message passing" and you
> responded with something that can pass 4 or 8 bytes between
> processes with the same UID. That isn't very general.

You mean "can pass an address". Now add a shared memory block and
the rest is trivial

> > take a look at async networking IO, fcntl(SETSIG), etc, implemented by
> > Stephen Tweedie recently. (it's in 2.2)
>
> Excellent - but only for network IO?

Nope

> > what overhead exactly are you complaining about? ...
>
> For 28456 calls, your apps had to test for a condition that
> did not happen.

No no - for 28456 calls you suffered from inability to read documentation

> It was handled in libc 5, but that was not standards compliant.
> Some apps need the system calls to be interrupted. The addition
> of an alternate API could reduce that need. Standards compliant
> apps could have the behavior they expect, while Linux-specific
> apps could have more logical behavior.

Go and read up on POSIX and Unix. When you've read about signal handling
and signal related issues and the fact you can control behaviours then
come back with a possibly valid criticism

The Unix API isnt perfect. Im sure of that. But people who moan about things
it can do are wasting time when they could be moaning (and better yet fixing)
things that it cant


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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:49    [W:0.052 / U:0.328 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site