On Monday 04 August 2008, Keith Packard wrote:
quoted text
> On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 15:11 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> > X libraries provide the event loop so that isn't really as complex as it
> > seems.
> 
> Uh, no, X doesn't. Gtk+ and Qt provide event loops that applications may
> use, but still many choose to roll their own.

Ok, how many need support for GEM? How many of them would change their
event loop, if they can get better performance?

Maybe have a slow path for legacy behavior?

Really, the sleeping part of of event loops is usually hidden 
in some libraries and the applications have a big switch statement 
somewhere to dispatch the reasons for wakeup.

quoted text
> >  Shuffling the handles around for the benefit of the odd legacy app
> > isn't something I'd disagree with but DRI and X in the general case can
> > determine the event loop system used by the application.
> 
> Yeah, it would be nice if we could just fix all of the existing
> applications. 

That is never required as long as only performance suffers, 
not functionality.

And the applications doing every syscall themselves are used to the pain :-)


Best Regards

Ingo Oeser
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/