![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-11-20 21:49 [W:0.161 / U:0.410 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||