[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch 14/22] pollfs: pollable futex
    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?

    IMHO, I thought we had already gone down the *fd road with inotify,
    posix message queue, and _hundred_ others file objects with poll methods.

    I also think that inotify+(e)poll proves how well the fd/epoll model
    fits together, scales, and that a new fancy event-delivery machinery is
    not necessary. And it makes me wonder why I hadn't followed its "watch"
    approach for futexes:

    futex_init(); // Davide's anon fd
    futex_add_watch(int fd, void *addr, int val, uint32_t mask);
    futex_rm_watch(int fd, uint32_t wd);
    Anyway, this unifying event machinery can be built, if needed, in user
    space by libevent and others.

    Davi Arnaut
    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: 2007-05-07 00:01    [from the cache]
    ©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean