From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jul 6 8:42:17 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from hoser.devel (hoser.devel.redhat.com [207.175.42.139]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70CC614D3B for ; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 08:42:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from zab@zabbo.net) Received: from localhost (zab@localhost) by hoser.devel (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA28383; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 11:41:35 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: hoser.devel: zab owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 11:41:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Zach Brown X-Sender: zab@hoser To: Niall Smart Cc: Jonathan Lemon , Mike Smith , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: poll() scalability In-Reply-To: <36E113A5.21F85DE5@pobox.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > 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