From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 08:47:46 -0400 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: <4be7f81375a5450a8b6536d66f756703@brasstown.quanstro.net> In-Reply-To: References: <309c101f23bbb6ec6a92b2bf1c525fd7@brasstown.quanstro.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [9fans] a pair nec bugs Topicbox-Message-UUID: e7660cd0-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Fri May 20 06:44:51 EDT 2011, rminnich@gmail.com wrote: > I think the growing complexity of nsec() shows that the file model > doesn't work in all cases ... the thing starts to look a bit overly > complex to me. The fact that it fails due to the size of a static fd > array is also a warning flag. hey, ron. did you just tl;dr my post? ☺ you've posted this opinion before, but i don't see how it relates to my implementation. there are no arrays, the algorithm is pretty straightforward, and it should work in all cases. if this is not the case, let i'd be interested. > You could then apply these to the output of cycles(): > nsec = (cycles()/divisor)-offset this is orthagonal to the problem i'm solving. you will still need to solve the problem of shared memory, but nonshared fd tables regardless. - erik