On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 07:39:11AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: > Jonathan Perkin <jper...@pkgsrc.org> writes: > > > * On 2023-08-13 at 18:10 BST, Tobias Nygren wrote: > > > >>On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 19:21:06 -0400 > >>Christos Zoulas <chris...@zoulas.com> wrote: > >> > >>> I really want to understand what's going on here (why do we think that > >>> our epoll implementation is broken in a way that will affect > >>> applications). > >> > >>jperkin@ might be able to explain what the issues with Illumos are, > >>but I guess the problems are of different nature than the NetBSD case. > > > > The problem is third-party software assumes epoll == Linux, and once > > I see it that Linux was first with epoll and thus is the specification. > In an ideal world, it would have gone through POSIX, but whatever. > Once that exists, I think an epoll implementation in other operating > systems has to have the exact same semantics, or it's asking for > trouble, perhaps hard-to-find ways. > > I don't really find it problematic that the world has assigned the word > epoll to Linux's implementation. To object to that one has to object to > any non-POSIX feature in any OS.
It's about assuming every other Linuxism is available if epoll is, not exact semantics.
