Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 4 Apr 2004 12:41:06 -0700 (PDT) | From | Davide Libenzi <> | Subject | Re: Is POLLHUP an input-only or bidirectional condition? (was: epoll reporting events when it hasn't been asked to) |
| |
On Sun, 4 Apr 2004, Ben Mansell wrote:
> With epoll, adding a fd into the epoll set is a separate operation from > the epoll_wait(), so if you really don't want to listen for any events > on one FD, you'll have to do a EPOLL_DEL, and then later on do a > EPOLL_ADD again if you want to bring it back in. Which is a bit nasty > and inefficient.
I really fail to see how handling POLLHUP and POLLERR would be a problem, even for fds where you specified a 0 event mask. If you receive them, you remove the fd from the set, and you flag the associated data structure for a lazy removal at the end of the current event loop. Where is the problem here?
- Davide
- 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/
| |