|From:||"Ulrich Drepper" <drepper-AT-gmail.com>|
|To:||"Davi Arnaut" <davi-AT-haxent.com.br>|
|Subject:||Re: [patch 14/22] pollfs: pollable futex|
|Date:||Thu, 3 May 2007 06:40:54 -0700|
|Cc:||"Eric Dumazet" <dada1-AT-cosmosbay.com>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>, "Davide Libenzi" <davidel-AT-xmailserver.org>, "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>, "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>|
On 5/2/07, Davi Arnaut <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > The usage cases of yours are quite different from mine. We don't use a > single file descriptor to to manage various resources. The worker threads > are _not going_ to have a file descriptor, _only_ the event dispatching > (poll) > thread. An model which doesn't scale well. > A pollable futex is even more useful for _single_ threaded programs that > don't want to go into lengthy hacks to monitor events coming from the > outside > world. There is nothing here that cannot be done with a more complete model for event handling. It's Linus decision whether he wants to add yet more code, yet more possible problems, yet more maintenance overhead/nightmare for an interim solution which isn't necessary, which cannot solve all the problems, and which is not as scalable as other proposed methods. I can only say that I would be trickly against it. It makes just no sense.
Copyright © 2007, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds