Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] epoll: read(),write(),ioctl() interface

[Clemens Ladisch]

Nathaniel Yazdani wrote:
> Using the normal I/O interface to manipulate eventpolls is much neater
> than using epoll-specific syscalls

But it introduces a _second_ API, which is epoll-specific too, and does
not use the standard semantics either.

> while also allowing for greater flexibility (theoretically, pipes could
> be used to filter access).

I do not understand this.

> read() simply waits for enough events to fill the provided buffer.

The usual semantics of read() are to return a partially filled buffer if
it would block otherwise, i.e., blocking is done only if the returned
buffer would have been empty.

> As timeout control is essential for polling to be practical, ioctl() is
> used to configure an optional timeout

This is what the timeout parameter of poll() and friends is for.


Regards,
Clemens
--
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/