Jonathan Graehl wrote:
>
> What would it take to get Linus to give the nod to an implementation conforming
> to the kqueue API? I remember him saying that he only wanted it to work for
> file descriptors, and to only allow one kqueue per process - neither of which I
> agree with. The abstraction penalty for the capability of multiple filter types
> and kqueue-as-selectable-fd is as minimal as a table lookup and a pointer
> indirection. If the kqueue API is overengineered, well, then, so is the
> Berkeley Sockets API.
>
You should ask the "other" Alan Cox. I'm the one
with the FreeBSD commit bit as opposed to the Linux
commit bit. :-)
In general, I agree with your statements in regards
to kqueue(). It's not overengineered. The capabilities
beyond simple poll/select functionality are quite useful
in practice. In fact, I contributed the current API
by which AIO can signal I/O completion through kevent().
Alan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
