Dan Kegel wrote: ... > Don't jump to conclusions. He's honestly trying to > understand what the optimal interface would be. > Let him catch up. Help him understand the requirements > which motivated the kqueue design and why his proposed > system call does not meet them. > > His role right now is to keep the kernel as simple as possible. > You need to prove that his proposed interface is simpler than possible :-) A simple way to keep the kernel simple: http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-12-09-013-20-NW-GN-KN :-) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Alfred Perlstein
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Jonathan Lemon
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Alfred Perlstein
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark results David Malone
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Daniel C. Sobral
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Dan Kegel
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Wes Peters
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark resul... Dan Kegel
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark resul... Zach Brown
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Jonas Bulow
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark resul... Wes Peters
- RE: kqueue microbenchmark results Koster, K.J.
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Michael C . Wu
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Wes Peters