Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sun, 6 May 2007 00:50:47 -0700 "Ulrich Drepper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> I really do not understand your point. You're too smart to not appreciate >>> the beauty and the simmetry of objects that responds to a common interface >>> (our files, win32 handles), and that fits our existing kernel >>> infrastructure. >> You're blinded by this symmetry. Not everything that looks like a >> good fit is a good idea. This is one case. Get over it, poll is not >> powerful enough to serve as the unifying event mechanism. > > What is your position on the timerfd/signalfd/etc patches? > > Seems to me that if we were to have fancy new event-delivery machinery > like kevent then the timerfd/signalfd work is heading in the other > direction and ultimately would prove to have been unneeded?
IMHO, I thought we had already gone down the *fd road with inotify, posix message queue, and _hundred_ others file objects with poll methods. I also think that inotify+(e)poll proves how well the fd/epoll model fits together, scales, and that a new fancy event-delivery machinery is not necessary. And it makes me wonder why I hadn't followed its "watch" approach for futexes: futex_init(); // Davide's anon fd futex_add_watch(int fd, void *addr, int val, uint32_t mask); futex_rm_watch(int fd, uint32_t wd); Anyway, this unifying event machinery can be built, if needed, in user space by libevent and others. -- Davi Arnaut - 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/