Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:20:06 +0200 From: Jamie Lokier <lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>, Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Message-ID: <20001027172006.A28504@pcep-jamie.cern.ch> In-Reply-To: <20001025161837.D28123@fw.wintelcom.net>; from bright@wintelcom.net on Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 04:18:37PM -0700 References: <20001025172702.B89038@prism.flugsvamp.com> <NCBBLIEPOCNJOAEKBEAKCEOPLHAA.davids@webmaster.com> <20001025161837.D28123@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > If a programmer does not ever wish to block under any circumstances, it's > > his obligation to communicate this desire to the implementation. Otherwise, > > the implementation can block if it doesn't have data or an error available > > at the instant 'read' is called, regardless of what it may have known or > > done in the past. > > Yes, and as you mentioned, it was _bugs_ in the operating system > that did this. Not for writes. POLLOUT may be returned when the kernel thinks you have enough memory to do a write, but someone else may allocate memory before you call write(). Or does POLLOUT not work this way? For read, you still want to declare the sockets non-blocking so your code is robust on _other_ operating systems. It's pretty straightforward. -- Jamie To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001027172006.A28504>