Re: sys_paccept: disable paccept() until API design is resolved

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Ulrich Drepper
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 - 4:17 pm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Michael Kerrisk wrote:

There is no reason for that.



It would unnecessarily require programs to be changed.  I've explained
that programs cannot efficiently use accept() and poll() when multiple
threads are involved.  This means in these situations you'll find a
single thread handling only the accept() calls.



This is because none of the other interfaces had (so far) be revised.
With this flawed argumentation you'd prevent any program ever to be made.



You use your own opinion as the deciding factor?  The behavior differs
from other uses but is consistent with the accept() behavior.



The signal set wasn't actually my idea.  See:

http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=120909788728078&w=2



I have explained the need already. you just chose to ignore it.

- --
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkjQPoQACgkQ2ijCOnn/RHTNZwCfaXdw5Yhy/chAUMqR2kZE8Rsm
wzUAnA7PtvODGyAMeahl44+mqasqGS1U
=Gh2E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
sys_paccept: disable paccept() until API design is resolved, Michael Kerrisk, (Tue Sep 16, 5:05 am)
Re: sys_paccept: disable paccept() until API design is res ..., Ulrich Drepper, (Tue Sep 16, 4:17 pm)