From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Feb 18 1:22:49 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from ren.detir.qld.gov.au (ns.detir.qld.gov.au [203.46.81.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FB3C113D0 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 01:20:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from syssgm@detir.qld.gov.au) Received: by ren.detir.qld.gov.au; id TAA10489; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:19:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from ogre.detir.qld.gov.au(167.123.8.3) by ren.detir.qld.gov.au via smap (3.2) id xma010483; Thu, 18 Feb 99 19:19:09 +1000 Received: from atlas.detir.qld.gov.au (atlas.detir.qld.gov.au [167.123.8.9]) by ogre.detir.qld.gov.au (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA17954; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:19:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from nymph.detir.qld.gov.au (nymph.detir.qld.gov.au [167.123.10.10]) by atlas.detir.qld.gov.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA23384; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:19:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from nymph.detir.qld.gov.au (localhost.detir.qld.gov.au [127.0.0.1]) by nymph.detir.qld.gov.au (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA29044; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:19:07 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from syssgm@nymph.detir.qld.gov.au) Message-Id: <199902180919.TAA29044@nymph.detir.qld.gov.au> To: Warner Losh Cc: Stephen McKay , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: select(2) proposed change References: <199902180742.RAA27123@nymph.detir.qld.gov.au> <199902180511.WAA65110@harmony.village.org> <199902180815.BAA66534@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: <199902180815.BAA66534@harmony.village.org> from Warner Losh at "Thu, 18 Feb 1999 01:15:43 -0700" Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:19:07 +1000 From: Stephen McKay Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thursday, 18th February 1999, Warner Losh wrote: >In message <199902180742.RAA27123@nymph.detir.qld.gov.au> Stephen McKay writes >: >: On Wednesday, 17th February 1999, Warner Losh wrote: >: >: >+Other systems may modify timeout, but no current ones do it by default. >: >: I am possibly displaying my ignorance, but I thought linux did this >: by default. > >No. Linux used to do this by default, but no longer does it by >default. There is a separate system call to do that... Well, OK then. Perhaps the wording should simply be that "No current systems modify timeout by default." >: select() should >: be changed to do the subtraction. > >Select should *NEVER* be changed to do the subtraction. There are >*NO* current systems that do this by default. FreeBSD shouldn't >change. It is a *********S***T***U***P***I***D********** idea to >change the semantics of select(2) at this late stage of the game. Don't hold back! Say what you really mean! ;-) >I've been there with the Linux experiment back in the 0.99p14 >timeframe of Linux. I cannot tell you the number of bogus programs >out there that caused 100% cpu usage... >If you want to create a __linux_select or select2 or some *OTHER* >system call that does this for you, then I have no objections. Well, no, I don't intend to add any modified select() yet. Perhaps when (and if) we add pselect (the variant that uses timespec instead of timeval) I might make a case for modifying timeout. I still think it is the right thing to do. Though I suppose some people might come after me with pitchforks. Stephen. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message