Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 17:27:02 -0500 From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> To: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> Cc: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com>, Simon Kirby <sim@stormix.com>, Dan Kegel <dank@alumni.caltech.edu>, chat@freebsd.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Message-ID: <20001025172702.B89038@prism.flugsvamp.com> In-Reply-To: <NCBBLIEPOCNJOAEKBEAKGEOMLHAA.davids@webmaster.com> References: <20001025165626.B87091@prism.flugsvamp.com> <NCBBLIEPOCNJOAEKBEAKGEOMLHAA.davids@webmaster.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001025172702.B89038>