On 13 May 2013 10:53, Paul LeoNerd <leon...@leonerd.org.uk> wrote: > [I'm not currently on the list so please forgive the manually-crafted > reply] > >> I'm confused as to why this is still an issue. Sure, fix the kqueue >> semantics and do it in a way that doesn't break backwards >> compatibility. > > I suggested that. Add a user->kernel flag > > EV_DROPWATCH > > which, if present, causes kernel to send back to userland events with > the kernel->user flag > > EV_DROPPING > > any time it drops the pointer. Then trivially userland just has to set > that flag on all its events to the kernel, and remember to send those > events back to userland when it does in fact drop them.
Cool! Ok. I'll go bring this up at bsdcan and see what people think. I haven't been knee deep in this stuff for a few years (but am about to again, damned HTTP proxies!) and I would love to have better semantics here. I just want to make sure it doesn't cause weird things for the non-socket case - ie, files (local, NFS) and signals. Adrian _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
