From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Apr 16 20:30:48 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from green.homeunix.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 2A3A916A4CE; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (green@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by green.homeunix.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i3H3Ul0t032543;
	Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:30:47 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from green@green.homeunix.org)
Message-Id: <200404170330.i3H3Ul0t032543@green.homeunix.org>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4
To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: Message from Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> 
	<200404170253.i3H2rmAV021500@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> 
From: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@freebsd.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:30:47 -0400
Sender: green@green.homeunix.org
cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: kqueue giant-locking (&kq_Giant, locking) 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 03:30:48 -0000

Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <200404170212.i3H2Cg8n031749@green.homeunix.org> you write:
> >1. The recursion has been removed from kqueue.  This means kqueues cannot be
> >   added to other kqueues for EVFILT_READ -- yes, that ability has been
> >   around since r1.1 of kern_event.c,
> 
> Actually, I'm fairly certain that Jonathan considered this to be a
> fairly important property of kqueue and his papers do mention it.
> It was done that way specifically to allow a kqueue to be included in
> some larger application's event polling loop without needing to know
> how it was implemented.

I can't imagine a well-designed applications has kqueues of kqueues.  I 
didn't remove the file descriptor polling interface, I removed the file 
descriptor kqueue interface.

-- 
Brian Fundakowski Feldman                           \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\
  <> green@FreeBSD.org                               \  The Power to Serve! \
 Opinions expressed are my own.                       \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\