From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 22 20:34:37 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FFF4106564A for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 20:34:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lyndon@orthanc.ca) Received: from elrond.orthanc.ca (elrond.orthanc.ca [216.40.124.65]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA1848FC08 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 20:34:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lyndon@orthanc.ca) Received: from [192.168.66.100] (mm.wbb.net.cable.rogers.com [74.210.92.229]) (authenticated bits=0) by elrond.orthanc.ca (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mBMKMIrQ007945 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:22:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:22:12 -0800 (PST) From: Lyndon Nerenberg X-X-Sender: lyndon@peregrin.local To: Garrett Cooper In-Reply-To: <7d6fde3d0812221215t24b401e9ue180bc915d16d92c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <20081221012752.cdc5cbfc.nork@FreeBSD.org> <20081221211949.GS1176@hoeg.nl> <20081222091203.GA28920@freebsd.org> <494F740E.3040502@FreeBSD.org> <20081223002901.9b71e60d.nork@FreeBSD.org> <7d6fde3d0812221215t24b401e9ue180bc915d16d92c@mail.gmail.com> Organization: The Frobozz Magic Homing Pigeon Company MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=unavailable version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on elrond.orthanc.ca Cc: FreeBSD Current Subject: Re: Change select(2) to kevent(2) on script(1)... X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 20:34:37 -0000 > Would partitioning out the select(2) code and #ifdef'ing it to mux > between the kevent(2) and select(2) interfaces be a prudent measure to > follow? No. This is just adding complexity for adding complexity's sake. The existing code works fine. Leave it alone. --lyndon