Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 11:41:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Zach Brown <zab@zabbo.net> To: Niall Smart <niall@pobox.com> Cc: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@americantv.com>, Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: poll() scalability Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9907061129440.5548-100000@hoser> In-Reply-To: <36E113A5.21F85DE5@pobox.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Well, how about the kernel passes siginfo and siginfo_cancel events > up to userland, siginfo will remove any siginfo's from its buffer > that it sees a siginfo_cancel event for -- naturally we need a flag > to tell siginfo when to poll for events, this flag would be > set by the function which cancels siginfo's. Would this work? Is > it worth the complexity? sure I imagine it would work, but I'd want to see someone come up for a darn good reason to need it before bogging the system down with a mess like that. at least in my case, some clever hoop-jumping gets rid of the nastiness of having stale events.. keeping the kernel side as light weight as humanly possible should be very high on the list of priorities here. -- zach - - - - - - 007 373 5963 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.10.9907061129440.5548-100000>