From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Zach Brown Subject: Re: [RFC 1/4] kevent: core files. Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:32:05 -0700 Message-ID: <44C930D5.9020704@oracle.com> References: <20060709132446.GB29435@2ka.mipt.ru> <20060724.231708.01289489.davem@davemloft.net> <44C91192.4090303@oracle.com> <20060727200655.GA4586@2ka.mipt.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from tetsuo.zabbo.net ([207.173.201.20]:54932 "EHLO tetsuo.zabbo.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751161AbWG0VcK (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:32:10 -0400 To: Evgeniy Polyakov In-Reply-To: <20060727200655.GA4586@2ka.mipt.ru> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org >> int kevent_getevents(int event_fd, struct ukevent *events, >> int min_events, int max_events, >> struct timeval *timeout); > > I used only one syscall for all operations, above syscall is > essentially what kevent_user_wait() does. Essentially, yes, but the differences are important. It's important to have a clear syscall interface instead of nesting through multiplexers. And we should get the batching/latency inputs right. (I'm for both min/max elements and arguably timeouts, but I could understand not wanting to go *that* far.) > Hmm, it looks like I'm lost here... Yeah, it seems my description might not have sunk in :). We're giving userspace a way to collect events without performing a system call. > I especially like idea about world happinness in a week or so :) A few weeks! :) - z