Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 15:11:37 -0700 From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> To: "Jonathan Lemon" <jlemon@flugsvamp.com>, "Simon Kirby" <sim@stormix.com> Cc: "Dan Kegel" <dank@alumni.caltech.edu>, <chat@freebsd.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Subject: RE: kqueue microbenchmark results Message-ID: <NCBBLIEPOCNJOAEKBEAKGEOMLHAA.davids@webmaster.com> In-Reply-To: <20001025165626.B87091@prism.flugsvamp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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. DS 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?NCBBLIEPOCNJOAEKBEAKGEOMLHAA.davids>