[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
John Gardiner Myers wrote:
> Dan Kegel wrote:
> > IMHO you're describing a situation where a 'completion notification event'
> > (as with aio) would be more appropriate than a 'readiness notification event'
> > (as with poll).
> I've found that I want both types of events, preferably through the same
> interface.

That's good to know.

> To provide a "completion notification event" interface on
> top of an existing nonblocking interface, one needs an "async poll"
> mechanism with edge-triggered events with no event coalescing.

If you have a top-notch completion notification event interface
provided natively by the OS, though, does that get rid of the
need for the "async poll" mechanism?

> You are correct in recognizing NT completion ports from my description.
> While the NT completion port interface is ugly as sin, it gets a number
> of performance issues right.
> > And, come to think of it, network programmers usually can be categorized
> > into the same two groups :-) Each style of programming is an acquired taste.
> I would say that the "completion notification" style is a paradigm
> beyond the "readiness notification" style. I started with the select()
> model of network programming and have since learned the clear
> superiority of the "completion notificatin" style.

Both seem to have their place, and deserve good support, IMHO.

- Dan
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [W:0.042 / U:0.152 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site