Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 21 Jan 1999 16:46:59 -0800 | From | Steven Roberts <> | Subject | Re: User vs. Kernel (was: To be smug, or not to be smug, that is the |
| |
"Albert D. Cahalan" wrote: > Steven Roberts writes: > > I personally like blocking system calls. They fit in far better > > for the application model I use. We have multiple threads, > > and it is easier to block. We in fact don't use the non blocking > > I/O calls in win32 because it is easier for us at least to use > > blocking ones. Yes, async IO can be nice for certain things, but > > saying blocking system calls are a bad idea is crap. > > Don't tell me you _like_ interrupted system calls... > > Threads change everything. How would you like a new thread > whenever a signal arrives? That could be an alternate fix. I guess I'm not sure what you mean by an interuppted system call then. in what cases will a read for example get interupted? I think I must be missing something (it's probably obvious, but I've been staring at way too much windows code today).
> >> If someone with great vision and design skills wants to create a > >> new API for Linux, we should seriously consider such a proposal. > > > I think this kind of boils down to user vs. kernel API issues. > > why not great this all new wonderful API set in a user space lib? > > Ha, ha, ha. NO. > > As a prototype, maybe. It would be an extraordinary kludge. > It would have all the crappyness of user-space threads and worse. > > > I really like that the > > kernel API in linux is small compared to the kernel API in win32. I > > quite a bit about the win32 API, but the most important thing I know, is > > that it is a big ugly mess, and I don't think linux should head in that > > direction. > No, the native NT kernel API is very simple. (it is not Win32) That's why I said win32... most apps have to target 95/98/NT these days, so using the native kernel API isn't practical (it also isn't documented worth a damn -- best docs I have seen are from the reverse engineering work from the sys internal's folks and the like) > > > I still like the old principle, of if you can do it in user space, then > > do it in user space. > > How about "do it in the best place" instead? Often that place is > a library, but don't get religious about it. > > In this case, the kernel API itself could use some adjustments. > Emulating that in userspace is a sick joke.
Yes, if it does prove that it would be best in the kernel, then so be it. the best place principle is a good one, but I think if it is a tie between user and kernel, we should go user.
Steve
- 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/
| |