Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:33:13 -0800 (PST) | From | Davide Libenzi <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHv4 5/6] Allow setting O_NONBLOCK flag for new sockets |
| |
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote: > > > It seems that you're doing the same thing in both cases, except you're > > now extending it to include other random functionality, which means > > other things than syslets are suddenly affected. > > > > syslets are arguably a little bit different, since what you're > > effectively doing there is running a miniature interpreted language in > > kernel space. A higher startup overhead should be acceptable, since > > you're amortizing it over a larger number of calls. Extending that > > mechanism suddenly means you HAVE to use that interpreted language > > message mechanism to access certain system calls, which really does > > not seem like a good thing neither for performance nor for encouraging > > sane design of interfaces. > > whether that interpreted syslet language survives is still an open > question - it was extremely ugly when i wrote the first version of it > and it only got uglier since then :-)
Aha! You admitted it finally :)
- 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/
| |