On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 09:04:04PM -0800, Howard Chu wrote: > Been there... I haven't been motivated to investigate poll() because it > really doesn't offer any scaling benefits vs select(). So can I take this as a 'no' for this patch? > As for /dev/poll and epoll() - they sound nice, but I don't want to get too > bogged down in OS-specific special cases. I guess a decent abstraction layer > above it would be OK, but I definitely don't want to see a lot of #ifdef > HAVE_DEVPOLL/HAVE_EPOLL junk littered all over daemon.c. The slapd_add/remove and set_write & friends already should roughly map to at least epoll() on Linux. I don't know about /dev/poll. It would only be necessary to re-write the loops over readers and writers. Maybe with a first_reader/next_reader style interface? This might work for select/poll as well as epoll. Volker
Attachment:
pgp0MzecvSIT0.pgp
Description: PGP signature