Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 22:10:58 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Joshua Oreman <oremanj@webserver.get-linux.org> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kqueue alternative? Message-ID: <3EEEA2E2.6E4A2409@mindspring.com> References: <1079.10.0.81.10.1055692530.squirrel@www.mundomateo.com> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030615125423.98988D-100000@fledge.watson.org> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030615125423.98988D-100000@fledge.watson.org> <20030616171110.GC56734@webserver.get-linux.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Joshua Oreman wrote: > > >I would say, use select(2). > > >Is there a reason this wouldn't work? > > > > Select doesn't work with files. > > Really? `man 2 select' says nothing about that. It just talks about > 'file descriptors'. Now if it said 'socket descriptors' or 'non-file > file descriptors' I would understand, but I don't think that that statement > is implied by the man page. Is there something I'm missing? Select blocks on readfds if a read from the file would block; that is never the case with a file: you will either get data, or you will get an EOF. Select blocks on writefds if a write to the file would block; that is never the case with a file: you will either successfully write, or you will get an error, e.g. as a result of exceeding quota, etc.. Therefore a select for reads or writes on a disk file should always return true. -- Terry
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3EEEA2E2.6E4A2409>