Re: [PATCHv4 5/6] Allow setting O_NONBLOCK flag for new sockets

[Davide Libenzi]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> * H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > It seems that you're doing the same thing in both cases, except you're 
> > now extending it to include other random functionality, which means 
> > other things than syslets are suddenly affected.
> >
> > syslets are arguably a little bit different, since what you're 
> > effectively doing there is running a miniature interpreted language in 
> > kernel space.  A higher startup overhead should be acceptable, since 
> > you're amortizing it over a larger number of calls.  Extending that 
> > mechanism suddenly means you HAVE to use that interpreted language 
> > message mechanism to access certain system calls, which really does 
> > not seem like a good thing neither for performance nor for encouraging 
> > sane design of interfaces.
> 
> whether that interpreted syslet language survives is still an open 
> question - it was extremely ugly when i wrote the first version of it 
> and it only got uglier since then :-)

Aha! You admitted it finally :)



- Davide


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/