Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
One can set number of events before the syscall and do not remove them
after syscall. It can be updated if there is need for that.
Nobody doubts that it is possible. But it is
a) potentially much expensive
and
b) an alien concept
to have the signal mask to set
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 02:59:48AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
One can set number of events before the syscall and do not remove them
after syscall. It can be updated if there is need for that.
Nobody doubts that it is possible. But it is
a)
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
In context you have cut, one updated signal mask between calls to event
delivery mechanism (using for example signal()), so it has exactly the
same price.
No, it does not. If the signal mask is recomputed by the program for
each new wait call then you have a lot more
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 10:20:44AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
It is completely possible to do what you describe without special
syscall parameters.
First of all, I don't see how this is efficiently possible. The mask
might change from call
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
And you can add/remove signal events using existing kevent api between
calls.
That's far more expensive than using a mask under control of the program.
And creating special cases for usual events is bad.
There is unified way to deal with events in kevent -
On 9/22/06, Evgeniy Polyakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only two things missed in patchset after his suggestions are
new POSIX-like interface, which I personally consider as very unconvenient,
This means you really do not know at all what this is about. We
already have these interfaces.
[Bah, sent too eaqrly]
On 9/22/06, Evgeniy Polyakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only two things missed in patchset after his suggestions are
new POSIX-like interface, which I personally consider as very unconvenient,
This means you really do not know at all what this is about. We
already
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 11:09:15PM -0700, Ulrich Drepper ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
On 9/22/06, Evgeniy Polyakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only two things missed in patchset after his suggestions are
new POSIX-like interface, which I personally consider as very unconvenient,
This means
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 11:10:51PM -0700, Ulrich Drepper ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
[Bah, sent too eaqrly]
On 9/22/06, Evgeniy Polyakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only two things missed in patchset after his suggestions are
new POSIX-like interface, which I personally consider as very
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
When we enter sys_ppoll() we specify needed signals as syscall
parameter, with kevents we will add them into the queue.
No, this is not sufficient as I said in the last mail. Why do you
completely ignore what others say. The code which depends on the signal
does not
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:33:25AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
When we enter sys_ppoll() we specify needed signals as syscall
parameter, with kevents we will add them into the queue.
No, this is not sufficient as I said in the last mail. Why
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
It is completely possible to do what you describe without special
syscall parameters.
First of all, I don't see how this is efficiently possible. The mask
might change from call to call.
Second, hasn't it sunk in that inventing new ways to pass parameters is
bad?
On 9/27/06, Evgeniy Polyakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
\ I have been told in private what is signal masks about - just to wait
until either signal or given condition is ready, but in that case just
add additional kevent user like AIO complete or netwrok notification
and wait until either
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 09:50:09PM -0700, Ulrich Drepper ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
On 9/27/06, Evgeniy Polyakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
\ I have been told in private what is signal masks about - just to wait
until either signal or given condition is ready, but in that case just
add
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 01:35:47PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Generic event handling mechanism.
Consider for inclusion.
I have been told in private what is signal masks about - just to wait
until either signal or given condition is ready, but in that case just
add
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 12:22:07PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 13:35:47 +0400
Evgeniy Polyakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Generic event handling mechanism.
Consider for inclusion.
Ulrich's objections sounded substantial, and afaik remain largely
unresolved. How
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 04:54:16PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Generic event handling mechanism.
Consider for inclusion.
Ulrich's objections sounded substantial, and afaik remain largely
unresolved. How do we sort this out?
I haven't seen any of
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 13:35:47 +0400
Evgeniy Polyakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Generic event handling mechanism.
Consider for inclusion.
Ulrich's objections sounded substantial, and afaik remain largely
unresolved. How do we sort this out?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 12:22:07PM -0700, Andrew Morton ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 13:35:47 +0400
Evgeniy Polyakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Generic event handling mechanism.
Consider for inclusion.
Ulrich's objections sounded substantial, and afaik remain largely
Generic event handling mechanism.
Consider for inclusion.
Changes from 'take18' patchset:
* use __init instead of __devinit
* removed 'default N' from config for user statistic
* removed kevent_user_fini() since kevent can not be unloaded
* use KERN_INFO for statistic output
Changes from
20 matches
Mail list logo
