From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Evgeniy Polyakov Subject: Re: [take22 0/4] kevent: Generic event handling mechanism. Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 09:21:58 +0300 Message-ID: <20061102062158.GC5552@2ka.mipt.ru> References: <1154985aa0591036@2ka.mipt.ru> <1162380963981@2ka.mipt.ru> <20061101130614.GB7195@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20061101132506.GA6433@2ka.mipt.ru> <20061101160551.GA2598@elf.ucw.cz> <20061101162403.GA29783@2ka.mipt.ru> <20061101185745.GA12440@2ka.mipt.ru> <5c49b0ed0611011812w8813df3p830e44b6e87f09f4@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Cc: LKML , Oleg Verych , Pavel Machek , David Miller , Ulrich Drepper , Andrew Morton , netdev , Zach Brown , Christoph Hellwig , Chase Venters , Johann Borck Return-path: To: Nate Diller Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5c49b0ed0611011812w8813df3p830e44b6e87f09f4@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 06:12:41PM -0800, Nate Diller (nate.diller@gmail.com) wrote: > Indesiciveness has certainly been an issue here, but I remember akpm > and Ulrich both giving concrete suggestions. I was particularly > interested in Andrew's request to explain and justify the differences > between kevent and BSD's kqueue interface. Was there a discussion > that I missed? I am very interested to see your work on this > mechanism merged, because you've clearly emphasized performance and > shown impressive results. But it seems like we lose out on a lot by > throwing out all the applications that already use kqueue. It looks you missed that discussion - freebsd kqueue has fields in the kevent structure which have diffent sizes in 32 and 64 bit environments. > NATE -- Evgeniy Polyakov