Re: epoll (was Re: [PATCH] async poll for 2.5)

[Davide Libenzi]

On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, John Gardiner Myers wrote:

> Davide Libenzi wrote:
>
> >>Nonsense.  If you wish to make such a claim, you need to provide an
> >>example of a situation in which it won't work.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Your welcome. This is your code :
> >
> >for (;;) {
> >     fd = event_wait(...);
> >     while (do_io(fd) != EAGAIN);
> >}
> >
> >If the I/O space is not exhausted when you call event_wait(...); you'll
> >never receive the event because you'll be waiting a 0->1 transaction
> >without bringing the signal to 0 ( I/O space exhausted ).
> >
> My code above does exhaust the I/O space.

Look, I'm usually very polite but you're really wasting my time. You
should know that an instruction at line N is usually executed before an
instruction at line N+1. Now this IS your code :

[N-1] for (;;) {
[N  ]     fd = event_wait(...);
[N+1]     while (do_io(fd) != EAGAIN);
[N+2} }

I will leave you as an exercise to understand what happens when you call
the first event_wait(...); and there is still data to be read/write on the
file descriptor. The reason you're asking /dev/epoll to drop an event at
fd insertion time shows very clearly that you're going to use the API is
the WRONG way and that you do not understand how such APIs works. And the
fact that there're users currently using the rt-sig and epoll APIs means
that either those guys are genius or you're missing something.

- Davide