From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Oct 25 15:28:35 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from prism.flugsvamp.com (cb58709-a.mdsn1.wi.home.com [24.17.241.9]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2AFB37B4CF for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 15:28:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jlemon@localhost) by prism.flugsvamp.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id e9PMR2s89738; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 17:27:02 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from jlemon) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 17:27:02 -0500 From: Jonathan Lemon To: David Schwartz Cc: Jonathan Lemon , Simon Kirby , Dan Kegel , chat@freebsd.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Message-ID: <20001025172702.B89038@prism.flugsvamp.com> References: <20001025165626.B87091@prism.flugsvamp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2i In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 03:11:37PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > > > Now, next time around the loop, we get a notification for an event > > when there is no data to read. The application now must be prepared > > to handle this case (meaning no blocking read() calls can be used). > > -- > > Jonathan > > If the programmer never wants to block in a read call, he should never do a > blocking read anyway. There's no standard that requires readability at time > X to imply readability at time X+1. Quite true on the surface. But taking that statement at face value implies that it is okay for poll() to return POLLIN on a descriptor even if there is no data to be read. I don't think this is the intention. -- Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message