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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |