Re: [PATCH 2 of 4] Introduce i386 fibril scheduling

[Davide Libenzi]

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Zach Brown wrote:

> > Since I still think that the many-thousands potential async operations
> > coming from network sockets are better handled with a classical event
> > machanism [1], and since smooth integration of new async syscall into the
> > standard POSIX infrastructure is IMO a huge win, I think we need to have a
> > "bridge" to allow async completions being detectable through a pollable
> > (by the mean of select/poll/epoll whatever) device.
> 
> Ugh, I'd rather not if we don't have to.
> 
> It seems like you could get this behaviour from issuing a
> poll/select(really?)/epoll as one of the async calls to complete.  (And you
> mention this in a later email? :))

Yes, no need for the above. We can just host a poll/epoll in an async() 
operation, and demultiplex once that gets ready.



- 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/