Re: [patch, rfc] lt-epoll ( level triggered epoll ) ... X-Newsgroups: local.mail.linux-kernel In-Reply-To: <local.mail.linux-kernel/[e-mail]>

[Jonathan Lemon]

In article <local.mail.linux-kernel/[e-mail]> you write:
>On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Valentin Nechayev wrote:
>
>>  Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 14:27:50, jamie wrote about "Re: [patch, rfc]
>lt-epoll ( level triggered epoll ) ...":
>>
>> > Actually I think _this_ is cleanest: A three-way flag per registered
>> > fd interest saying whether to:
>> >
>> > 	1. Report 0->1 edges for this interest.  (Initial 1 counts as an event).
>> > 	2. Continually report 1 levels for this interest.
>> > 	3. One-shot, report the first time 1 is noted and unregister.
>> >
>> > ET poll is equivalent to 1.  LT poll is equivalent to 2.  dnotify's
>> > one-shot mode is equivalent to 3.
>>
>> kqueue can do all three variants (1st with EV_CLEAR, 3rd with EV_ONESHOT).
>>
>> So, result of this whole epoll work is trivially predictable - Linux will have
>> analog of "overbloated" and "poorly designed" kqueue, but more poor
>> and with incompatible interface, adding its own stone to hell of
>> different APIs. Congratulations.
>
>See, this is a free world, and I very much respect your opinion. On the
>other side you might want to actually *read* the kqueue man page and find
>out of its 24590 flags, where 99% of its users will use only 1% of its
>functionality. Talking about overbloating. You might also want to know
>that quite a few kqueue users currently running on your favourite OS, are
>moving to Linux+epoll. The reason is still unclear to me, but I can leave
>you to discover it as exercise.

FUD. You should know that in the normal case, kq users don't use any
flags, but they are available for those people who are doing specific
things.  But I bet you knew that already and just want to slam something
that isn't epoll.
-- 
Jonathan