Kev wrote:
>
> > > I don't understand what it is you're saying here. The ircu server uses
> > > non-blocking sockets, and has since long before EfNet and Undernet branched,
> > > so it already handles EWOULDBLOCK or EAGAIN intelligently, as far as I know.
> >
> > Right. poll() and Solaris /dev/poll are programmer-friendly; they give
> > you the current readiness status for each socket. ircu handles them fine.
> >
> > /dev/epoll and Linux 2.4's rtsig feature, on the other hand, are
> > programmer-hostile; they don't tell you which sockets are ready.
> > Instead, they tell you when sockets *become* ready;
> > your only indication that those sockets have become *unready*
> > is when you see an EWOULDBLOCK from them.
>
> If I'm reading Poller_sigio::waitForEvents correctly, the rtsig stuff at
> least tries to return a list of which sockets have become ready, and your
> implementation falls back to some other interface when the signal queue
> overflows. It also seems to extract what state the socket's in at that
> point.
>
> If that's true, I confess I can't quite see your point even still. Once
> the event is generated, ircd should read or write as much as it can, then
> not pay any attention to the socket until readiness is again signaled by
> the generation of an event. Sorry if I'm being dense here...
If you actually do read or write *until an EWOULDBLOCK*, no problem.
If your code has a path where it fails to do so, it will get stuck,
as no further readiness events will be forthcoming. That's all.
- Dan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 07 2002 - 21:00:31 EST