From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 13:18:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 13:17:58 -0400 Received: from [208.129.208.52] ([208.129.208.52]:50438 "EHLO xmailserver.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 13:17:45 -0400 Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.0 on Linux X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3BA80108.C830D602@kegel.com> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:21:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Davide Libenzi To: Dan Kegel Subject: re: [PATCH] /dev/epoll update ... Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 19-Sep-2001 Dan Kegel wrote: > Davide wrote: > >> The /dev/epoll patch has been updated : >> >> *) Stale events removal >> *) Help in Configure.help ( thanks to David E. Weekly ) >> *) Fit 2.4.9 >> ... >> http://www.xmailserver.org/linux-patches/nio-improve.html > > Davide, > I'm getting ready to stress-test /dev/epoll finally. > In porting my Poller_devpoll.{cc,h} to support /dev/epoll, I noticed > the following issues: Pls wait the end of today to let me update the patch correctly. > > 2. The names made visible to userland by your patch do not follow > a consistent naming convention. May I suggest that you use > EPOLL_ as a uniform prefix, and epoll.h as the user-visible include file? > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/compilation.html > shows that Posix cares greatly about this kind of namespace issue, > and it'd be nice to follow their lead, even though this isn't a Posix > interface. Posix spoke :) I'll change it in the next versions. > 3. You modify asm/poll.h. Can your modifications be restricted to epoll.h > instead? (Hey, I don't know much, maybe there's a good reason you did this.) This is where flags are stored and using an external file could lead to a collision when other coders will add flags. IMHO is better to have a centralized definition of these flags. - Davide