--b5gNqxB1S1yM7hjW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 11:51:03PM +0200, Elad Efrat wrote:
> David Laight wrote:
>=20
> > There is a suggestion that this might involve a double process switch..=
..
> > I worry about the performance costs of this, and the fact that callers
> > may not be in a position where sleeping is valid.
>=20
> I'll admit that I'm not sure where you see a possibility for a double
> process switch to happen so before I can comment on it you'll have to
> elaborate a bit more.

When I first read the proposal, I thought the "default listener" of the=20
original note was running in its own process context, thus you'd have to=20
context switch to it and then back again. I gather David read it the same=
=20
way.

A callback works much better. :-)

Take care,

Bill

--b5gNqxB1S1yM7hjW
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFEJHLbWz+3JHUci9cRAhdpAJ0ZH+3wuyYFDJcvBw/1sTQe1uPt9wCgkax0
rDsa2qRdI0DKJ+qC5DrwZXw=
=wuAX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--b5gNqxB1S1yM7hjW--