Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jul 1999, John Polstra wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>>
>> The application itself has to get involved if it wants to do async
>> name lookups, or async anything else, for that matter. Suppose you
>> do have an async thread to do hostname lookups as you propose. Wh
> From: John Polstra
> Date: 1999-07-06 09:36:51 -0700
> To: arc...@whistle.com
> Subject: Re: poll() vs select()
> Cc: hack...@freebsd.org
> In-reply-to: <199907050103.saa51...@bubba.whistle.com>
> Delivered-to: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
> X-Loop: FreeBSD.OR
On Tue, 6 Jul 1999, John Polstra wrote:
> In article ,
>
> The application itself has to get involved if it wants to do async
> name lookups, or async anything else, for that matter. Suppose you
> do have an async thread to do hostname lookups as you propose. What
> is the application going to
In article
you write:
>In article <199907050103.saa51...@bubba.whistle.com>,
>Archie Cobbs wrote:
>>
>> A new, faster event notification system would be great. But don't forget
>> to include *all* events, not just file descriptor readability/writability.
>
>Yes! Yes! Yes! (I agree.)
There
In article ,
Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Archie Cobbs wrote:
>
> > A new, faster event notification system would be great. But don't forget
> > to include *all* events, not just file descriptor readability/writability.
> > I.e., signal delivery, child exit notification, maybe ev
Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jul 1999, John Polstra wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>
>> The application itself has to get involved if it wants to do async
>> name lookups, or async anything else, for that matter. Suppose you
>> do have an async thread to do hostname lookups
> From: John Polstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 1999-07-06 09:36:51 -0700
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: poll() vs select()
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In-reply-to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Delivered-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG
> Organiza
In article <199907050103.saa51...@bubba.whistle.com>,
Archie Cobbs wrote:
>
> A new, faster event notification system would be great. But don't forget
> to include *all* events, not just file descriptor readability/writability.
Yes! Yes! Yes! (I agree.)
John
--
John Polstra
On Tue, 6 Jul 1999, John Polstra wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
> The application itself has to get involved if it wants to do async
> name lookups, or async anything else, for that matter. Suppose you
> do have an async thread to do hostname lookups as you propose. What
> is the a
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED]> you
write:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Archie Cobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> A new, faster event notification system would be great. But don't forget
>> to include *all* events, not just file descriptor readability/writability.
>
>Yes! Yes! Yes! (I
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Brian F. Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Archie Cobbs wrote:
>
> > A new, faster event notification system would be great. But don't forget
> > to include *all* events, not just file descriptor readability/writability.
> > I.e., signal deli
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Archie Cobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> A new, faster event notification system would be great. But don't forget
> to include *all* events, not just file descriptor readability/writability.
Yes! Yes! Yes! (I agree.)
John
--
John Polstra
On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Archie Cobbs wrote:
> Christopher Sedore writes:
>
> A new, faster event notification system would be great. But don't forget
> to include *all* events, not just file descriptor readability/writability.
> I.e., signal delivery, child exit notification, maybe even support for
>
Christopher Sedore writes:
> > Actually.. select() has three copyins and three copyouts per call. poll()
> > has one copyin and one copyout per call.
> >
> > Now what I particular like is the event queue system that David Filo put
> > together for Yahoo. In a nutshell you create a queue (a fd), a
On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Archie Cobbs wrote:
> Christopher Sedore writes:
>
> A new, faster event notification system would be great. But don't forget
> to include *all* events, not just file descriptor readability/writability.
> I.e., signal delivery, child exit notification, maybe even support for
Christopher Sedore writes:
> > Actually.. select() has three copyins and three copyouts per call. poll()
> > has one copyin and one copyout per call.
> >
> > Now what I particular like is the event queue system that David Filo put
> > together for Yahoo. In a nutshell you create a queue (a fd),
On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Peter Wemm wrote:
> "Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > 0...@crb.crb-web.com> you write:
> > > >now supports the select() and poll() system calls. My question is
> > > >really
> one
> > > >of usage.
On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Peter Wemm wrote:
> "Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> >
> > > In article [EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> > > >now supports the select() and poll() system calls. My question is really
> one
> > > >of usage. Why would one us
> But poll() copies in HUGE amounts of data compared to the few bytes for
> thousands of FDs that select does.
but the size of the select() mask is dependant on the highest numbered fd
that we care about, rather than the number of fds we actually care about.
this becomes highly uncool in a mondo
On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Peter Wemm wrote:
> Now what I particular like is the event queue system that David Filo put
> together for Yahoo. In a nutshell you create a queue (a fd), and then
> register the descriptors you want to monitor with the queue. You then run
> an accept()-like loop where the ac
> But poll() copies in HUGE amounts of data compared to the few bytes for
> thousands of FDs that select does.
but the size of the select() mask is dependant on the highest numbered fd
that we care about, rather than the number of fds we actually care about.
this becomes highly uncool in a mondo
On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Peter Wemm wrote:
> Now what I particular like is the event queue system that David Filo put
> together for Yahoo. In a nutshell you create a queue (a fd), and then
> register the descriptors you want to monitor with the queue. You then run
> an accept()-like loop where the a
On Saturday, 3 July 1999 at 23:31:20 -0500, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> On Jul 07, 1999 at 01:51:28PM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote:
>> On Saturday, 3 July 1999 at 23:10:29 -0500, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
>>> On Jul 07, 1999 at 12:04:35PM +0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
Is there interest in doing something lik
On Saturday, 3 July 1999 at 23:31:20 -0500, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> On Jul 07, 1999 at 01:51:28PM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote:
>> On Saturday, 3 July 1999 at 23:10:29 -0500, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
>>> On Jul 07, 1999 at 12:04:35PM +0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
Is there interest in doing something like
On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Peter Wemm wrote:
> "Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> >
> > > In article [EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> > > >now supports the select() and poll() system calls. My question is really
> one
> > > >of usage. Why would one us p
On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Peter Wemm wrote:
> "Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > 0...@crb.crb-web.com> you write:
> > > >now supports the select() and poll() system calls. My question is
> > > >really
> one
> > > >of usage. W
On Jul 07, 1999 at 01:51:28PM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote:
> On Saturday, 3 July 1999 at 23:10:29 -0500, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> > On Jul 07, 1999 at 12:04:35PM +0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
> >> Is there interest in doing something like this in general?
> >
> > YES! As a matter of fact, I've done someth
On Jul 07, 1999 at 01:51:28PM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote:
> On Saturday, 3 July 1999 at 23:10:29 -0500, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> > On Jul 07, 1999 at 12:04:35PM +0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
> >> Is there interest in doing something like this in general?
> >
> > YES! As a matter of fact, I've done somethi
On Saturday, 3 July 1999 at 23:10:29 -0500, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> On Jul 07, 1999 at 12:04:35PM +0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
>> "Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
>>>
In article > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> now supports the select() and poll()
On Saturday, 3 July 1999 at 23:10:29 -0500, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> On Jul 07, 1999 at 12:04:35PM +0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
>> "Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
>>>
In article > 0...@crb.crb-web.com> you write:
> now supports the select() and poll(
On Jul 07, 1999 at 12:04:35PM +0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
> "Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> >
> > > In article [EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> > > >now supports the select() and poll() system calls. My question is really
> one
> > > >of usage. Wh
On Jul 07, 1999 at 12:04:35PM +0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
> "Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > 0...@crb.crb-web.com> you write:
> > > >now supports the select() and poll() system calls. My question is
> > > >really
> one
> >
"Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
>
> > In article you write:
> > >now supports the select() and poll() system calls. My question is really
one
> > >of usage. Why would one us poll() over select()? Is select eventually go
ing
> > >to go away for so
"Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
>
> > In article you write:
> > >now supports the select() and poll() system calls. My question is really
one
> > >of usage. Why would one us poll() over select()? Is select eventually go
ing
> > >to go away for som
"Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
>
> > On Jul 07, 1999 at 01:01:07AM -0400, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> >
> > > > As for new code, use whichever you are comfortable with. Personally, I
> > > > would recommend p
"Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
>
> > On Jul 07, 1999 at 01:01:07AM -0400, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> >
> > > > As for new code, use whichever you are comfortable with. Personally, I
> > > > would recommend po
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> On Jul 07, 1999 at 11:27:57AM -0400, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> > On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> >
> > > On Jul 07, 1999 at 01:01:07AM -0400, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> > >
> > > > > As for
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> On Jul 07, 1999 at 11:27:57AM -0400, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> > On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> >
> > > On Jul 07, 1999 at 01:01:07AM -0400, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> > >
> > > > > As for n
On Jul 07, 1999 at 11:27:57AM -0400, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
>
> > On Jul 07, 1999 at 01:01:07AM -0400, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> >
> > > > As for new code, use whichever you are comfortable with. Person
On Jul 07, 1999 at 11:27:57AM -0400, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
>
> > On Jul 07, 1999 at 01:01:07AM -0400, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> >
> > > > As for new code, use whichever you are comfortable with. Persona
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> On Jul 07, 1999 at 01:01:07AM -0400, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
>
> > > As for new code, use whichever you are comfortable with. Personally, I
> > > would recommend poll(), since it provides some added functi
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> On Jul 07, 1999 at 01:01:07AM -0400, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
>
> > > As for new code, use whichever you are comfortable with. Personally, I
> > > would recommend poll(), since it provides some added functio
On Jul 07, 1999 at 01:01:07AM -0400, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> > poll() is faster (it doesn't have to do bit twiddling), and it's interface
> > is cleaner (it can report invalid fd's, something select() can't do). As
> > its functionality is a superset
On Jul 07, 1999 at 01:01:07AM -0400, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> > poll() is faster (it doesn't have to do bit twiddling), and it's interface
> > is cleaner (it can report invalid fd's, something select() can't do). As
> > its functionality is a superset o
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> In article
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>you write:
> >now supports the select() and poll() system calls. My question is really one
> >of usage. Why would one us poll() over select()? Is select eventually going
> >to go away for some reason?
>
> select()
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> In article
>
> you write:
> >now supports the select() and poll() system calls. My question is really one
> >of usage. Why would one us poll() over select()? Is select eventually going
> >to go away for some reason?
>
> select() as a user-level
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
you write:
>now supports the select() and poll() system calls. My question is really one
>of usage. Why would one us poll() over select()? Is select eventually going
>to go away for some reason?
select() as a user-level call will never go away; there is a larg
In article
you write:
>now supports the select() and poll() system calls. My question is really one
>of usage. Why would one us poll() over select()? Is select eventually going
>to go away for some reason?
select() as a user-level call will never go away; there is a large base
of code that
I am struggling through understanding device drivers under freebsd. I have
nice book and linux device drivers and some older ones on the UNIX device
drivers but nothing seems to match perfectly with freebsd... So stay tuned for
more questions
Correct me if I am wrong... After reading the in
I am struggling through understanding device drivers under freebsd. I have
nice book and linux device drivers and some older ones on the UNIX device
drivers but nothing seems to match perfectly with freebsd... So stay tuned for
more questions
Correct me if I am wrong... After reading the ins
50 matches
Mail list logo
