> No, that is just entrenching the polling methodology. > I am a proponent of true AIO design, with _no_ polling > facilities available at all.
I understand what you mean, but poll() loops, despite the misleading name of the central primitive, are not doing any polling at all. poll() works by notification, not by polling (... at least I hope that kernel developers have the good sense to make it so). Fully asynchronous poll() loops are event-driven programming (wait to be notified of an event, take related action, rinse, repeat), just as completion queues are. If you like DNIX's completion queues, there is no reason you should dislike poll() loops, because it's the same paradigm; the DNIX API probably just provides you with nice syntactic sugar to hide the gory details of adding and removing events and/or timers. Other AIO paradigms mess with the program control flow. I personally like having maximum control over the control flow, so I'm reluctant to use such paradigms, but it's purely a question of taste. -- Laurent _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
