On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 11:40:43AM -0800, Nate Diller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Are you saying that the *only* reason we choose not to be
> source-compatible with BSD is the 32 bit userland on 64 bit arch
> problem? I've followed every thread that gmail 'kqueue' search
I.e. do you want that generic event handling mechanism would not work on
x86_64? I doubt you do.
> returns, which thread are you referring to? Nicholas Miell, in "The
> Proposed Linux kevent API" thread, seems to think that there are no
> advantages over kqueue to justify the incompatibility, an argument you
> made no effort to refute. I've also read the Kevent wiki at
> linux-net.osdl.org, but it too is lacking in any direct comparisons
> (even theoretical, let alone benchmarks) of the flexibility,
> performance, etc. between the two.
>
> I'm not arguing that you've done a bad design, I'm asking you to brag
> about the things you improved on vs. kqueue. Your emphasis on
> unifying all the different event types into one interface is really
> cool, fill me in on why that can't be effectively done with the kqueue
> compatability and I also will advocate for kevent inclusion.
kqueue just can not be used as is in Linux (_maybe_ *bsd has different
types, not those which I found in /usr/include in my FC5 and Debian
distro). It will not work on x86_64 for example. Some kind of a pointer
or unsigned long in structures which are transferred between kernelspace
and userspace is so much questionable, than it is much better even do
not see there... (if I would not have so political correctness, I would
describe it in a much different words actually).
So, kqueue API and structures can not be usd in Linux.
> NATE
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
