[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch 14/22] pollfs: pollable futex
On Sun, 6 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Sun, 6 May 2007 00:50:47 -0700 "Ulrich Drepper" <> wrote:
> > > I really do not understand your point. You're too smart to not appreciate
> > > the beauty and the simmetry of objects that responds to a common interface
> > > (our files, win32 handles), and that fits our existing kernel infrastructure.
> >
> > You're blinded by this symmetry. Not everything that looks like a
> > good fit is a good idea. This is one case. Get over it, poll is not
> > powerful enough to serve as the unifying event mechanism.
> What is your position on the timerfd/signalfd/etc patches?
> Seems to me that if we were to have fancy new event-delivery machinery
> like kevent then the timerfd/signalfd work is heading in the other
> direction and ultimately would prove to have been unneeded?

Yes, of course. If we're heading to yet-another monolitic interface, we're
heading with no valid reasons given if other than some handwaving. While
there are quite a few (modularity, compatibilty, plus the other ones that
came in my mind and that I explained in the way-too-many emails) to back a
file-based approach.
Conversation with Uli, as often happen when arguing about software, got
stuck. And since noone else seems interested in bringing valid points in
one way or another, I'll leave the discussion as is, and I'll let you sort
it out.

- Davide

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-05-06 22:21    [W:0.109 / U:6.784 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site