Re: [PATCHv4 5/6] Allow setting O_NONBLOCK flag for new sockets

Davide Libenzi
2007-11-20T22:33:51Z

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> * H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
>
> > It seems that you're doing the same thing in both cases, except you're
> > now extending it to include other random functionality, which means
> > other things than syslets are suddenly affected.
> >
> > syslets are arguably a little bit different, since what you're
> > effectively doing there is running a miniature interpreted language in
> > kernel space. A higher startup overhead should be acceptable, since
> > you're amortizing it over a larger number of calls. Extending that
> > mechanism suddenly means you HAVE to use that interpreted language
> > message mechanism to access certain system calls, which really does
> > not seem like a good thing neither for performance nor for encouraging
> > sane design of interfaces.
>
> whether that interpreted syslet language survives is still an open
> question - it was extremely ugly when i wrote the first version of it
> and it only got uglier since then :-)

Aha! You admitted it finally :)

- Davide