On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, bert hubert wrote: > > > > From my end as an application developer, yes please. Either make it > > perfectly ok to have thousands of outstanding asynchronous system calls (I > > work with thousands of separate sockets), or allow me to select/poll/epoll > > on the "async fd". > > No can do. > > Allocating an fd is actually too expensive, exactly because a lot of these > operations are supposed to be a few hundred ns, and taking locks is simply > a bad idea. > > But if you want to, we could have a *separate* "convert async cookie to > fd" so that you can poll for it, or something. > > I doubt very many people want to do that. It would tend to simply be nicer > to do > > async(poll); > async(waitpid); > async(.. wait foranything else ..) > > followed by a > > wait_for_async(); > > That's just a much NICER approach, I would argue. And it automatically > and very naturally solves the "wait for different kinds of events" > question, in a way that "poll()" never did (except by turning all events > into file descriptors or signals).
Bert, that was the first suggestion I gave to Zab. But then I realized that a multiplexed poll/epoll can be "hosted" in an async op, just like Linus showed above. Will work just fine IMO. - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
