Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 02:32:59 +0100 (BST) From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> To: jlemon@flugsvamp.com (Jonathan Lemon) Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox), jlemon@flugsvamp.com (Jonathan Lemon), gid@cisco.com (Gideon Glass), sim@stormix.com (Simon Kirby), dank@alumni.caltech.edu (Dan Kegel), chat@freebsd.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Message-ID: <E13oyOE-00044z-00@the-village.bc.nu> In-Reply-To: <20001026201042.A38500@prism.flugsvamp.com> from "Jonathan Lemon" at Oct 26, 2000 08:10:42 PM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> the application of a close event. What can I say, "the fd formerly known > as X" is now gone? It would be incorrect to say that "fd X was closed", > since X no longer refers to anything, and the application may have reused > that fd for another file. Which is precisely why you need to know where in the chain of events this happened. Otherwise if I see 'read on fd 5' 'read on fd 5' How do I know which read is for which fd in the multithreaded case > As for the multi-thread case, this would be a bug; if one thread closes > the descriptor, the other thread is going to get an EBADF when it goes > to perform the read. Another thread may already have reused the fd To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E13oyOE-00044z-00>