On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 11:41:20AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig (hch@infradead.org) wrote:

On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 05:40:32PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:

quoted

quoted

What speaks against a patch the recplaces the epoll core by something that
build on kevent while still supporting the epoll interface as a compatibility
shim?

There is no problem from my side, but epoll and kevent_poll differs on
some aspects, so it can be better to not replace them for a while.

Please explain the differences and why they are important.  We really
shouldn't keep on adding code without beeing able to replace older bits.
If there's a really good reason we can keep things separate, but

  "epoll and kevent_poll differs on some aspects"

is not one :)

kevent_poll uses hash table (actually it is kevent that uses table),
locking is simpler and part of it is hidden in kevent core.
Actually kevent_poll is just a container allocator for poll wait queue.
So epoll does not differ (except hash/tree and locking,
which is based on locks for pathes which are shared in kevent with those
ones which can be called from irq/bh context) from kevent + kevent_poll.
And since kevent_poll can be not selected while epoll is always there
(until embedded config is turned on), I recommend to have them both.
Or always turn kevent on :)

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov