On 05/06/2013 18:39, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, 2013-06-05 at 18:30 +0300, Eliezer Tamir wrote: >> On 05/06/2013 18:21, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> It would also make sense to give end_time as a parameter, so that the >>> polling() code could really give a end_time for the whole duration of >>> poll(). >>> >>> (You then should test can_poll_ll(end_time) _before_ call to >>> ndo_ll_poll()) >> >> how would you handle a nonblocking operation in that case? >> I guess if we have a socket option, then we don't need to handle none >> blocking any diffrent, since the user specified exactly how much time to >> waste polling. right? > > If the thread already spent 50us in the poll() system call, it for sure > should not call any ndo_ll_poll(). This makes no more sense at this > point. what about a non-blocking read from a socket? Right now we assume this means poll only once since the application will repeat as needed. maybe add a "once" parameter that will cause sk_poll_ll() to ignore end time and only try once? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments: 1. A cloud service to automate IT design, transition and operations 2. Dashboards that offer high-level views of enterprise services 3. A single system of record for all IT processes http://p.sf.net/sfu/servicenow-d2d-j _______________________________________________ E1000-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel To learn more about Intel® Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired
