Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 16:33:57 -0600 From: "Alan L. Cox" <alc@imimic.com> To: Jonathan Graehl <jonathan@graehl.org> Cc: Freebsd-Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD Networking Performance Message-ID: <3ABBCF55.E4B99274@imimic.com> References: <NCBBLOALCKKINBNNEDDLGEAMDNAA.jonathan@graehl.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jonathan Graehl wrote: > > What would it take to get Linus to give the nod to an implementation conforming > to the kqueue API? I remember him saying that he only wanted it to work for > file descriptors, and to only allow one kqueue per process - neither of which I > agree with. The abstraction penalty for the capability of multiple filter types > and kqueue-as-selectable-fd is as minimal as a table lookup and a pointer > indirection. If the kqueue API is overengineered, well, then, so is the > Berkeley Sockets API. > You should ask the "other" Alan Cox. I'm the one with the FreeBSD commit bit as opposed to the Linux commit bit. :-) In general, I agree with your statements in regards to kqueue(). It's not overengineered. The capabilities beyond simple poll/select functionality are quite useful in practice. In fact, I contributed the current API by which AIO can signal I/O completion through kevent(). Alan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3ABBCF55.E4B99274>