From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 17:48:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 17:48:26 -0400 Received: from [208.129.208.52] ([208.129.208.52]:18960 "EHLO xmailserver.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 17:48:22 -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: <3BABB23C.D3BB1F6C@distributopia.com> Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 14:52:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Davide Libenzi To: "Christopher K. St. John" Subject: Re: /dev/yapoll : 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 21-Sep-2001 Christopher K. St. John wrote: > Davide Libenzi wrote: >> >> "Did you read and understood the /dev/epoll code ?" >> > > Did you read and understand the Banga99 paper? > > But this is getting silly. We've agreed that > you don't like the changes, and I have agreed > to implement some of them in a new patch. As you can see the Banga paper is between my references and that is a very good text. What i asked you, since you said that /dev/epoll users must fall back doing poll(), is when this happens. You said something that IMHO is wrong and i'd like to know if either i'm wrong or you are. - Davide