From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue May 27 10:15:37 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA22722
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 27 May 1997 10:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.ts.kiev.ua (viking.ts.kiev.ua [193.124.229.195])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA22717
          for <FreeBSD-Hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 27 May 1997 10:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aviion.ts.kiev.ua by smtp1.ts.kiev.ua with SMTP id TAA13875;
  (8.8.3/zah/2.1) Tue, 27 May 1997 19:59:57 +0300 (EET DST)
Received: from nbki.ipri.kiev.ua by aviion.ts.kiev.ua with ESMTP id RAA00787;
  (8.6.11/zah/2.1) Tue, 27 May 1997 17:33:42 GMT
Received: from cki.ipri.kiev.ua by nbki.ipri.kiev.ua with ESMTP id SAA05160;
  (8.6.9/zah/1.1) Tue, 27 May 1997 18:41:55 +0100
Received: from 194.44.146.14 (mac.ipri.kiev.ua [194.44.146.14]) by cki.ipri.kiev.ua (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA02702; Tue, 27 May 1997 19:00:28 +0300 (EET DST)
Message-ID: <338AF74F.2E3D@cki.ipri.kiev.ua>
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 18:01:15 +0300
From: Ruslan Shevchenko <rssh@cki.ipri.kiev.ua>
Reply-To: rssh@cki.ipri.kiev.ua
Organization: IPRI
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Macintosh; I; 68K)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christopher Sedore <cmsedore@mailbox.syr.edu>
CC: FreeBSD-Hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: async socket stuff
References: <Pine.SOL.3.95.970527111554.10830E-100000@rodan.syr.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Christopher Sedore wrote:
> 
> I've been thinking about implementing some async socket handling code and
> am wondering if someone else is doing this or has done it.  I've been
> thinking about two different approaches:
> 
> 1. Creating a new ioctl set and a few syscalls to allow you to
> associate a socket with something like an NT I/O completion port.  This
> would allow you to associate a socket descriptor with a queue and each
> time the socket's status changed (via sorwakeup or sowwakeup) I'd post an
> entry into the queue.  The idea is that rather than using select() and
> then searching through a list of descriptors, you could just read them off
> one (or many) at a time and do I/O on the appropriate descriptors.   This
> seems to me to be more efficient than select().

 What process must do, if it queue is emty ? --- if wait, 
it's simular to select call.
In principle it can be option in general net library.

> 
> 2. Implementing general async I/O for sockets.  Then, rather than (or
> perhaps in addition to) the above functionality, you could use the queue
> to hold results of async operations.
> 
> I've also thought of adding a call like NT's TransmitFile() (single call
> file transfer).
> 

why syscoll ? You think, taht it is systel-level stuff ?
It can be do in extra library.

And about net calls : are somebody know, is exixts TLI compability
library ?

> Comments? Suggestions? Criticisms?
> 
> -Chris