From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 23:32:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 23:32:18 -0400 Received: from marine.sonic.net ([208.201.224.37]:5410 "HELO marine.sonic.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 23:32:05 -0400 X-envelope-info: Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 20:31:27 -0700 From: Mike Castle To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: select() - Linux vs. BSD Message-ID: <20010602203125.A8378@thune.mrc-home.com> Reply-To: Mike Castle Mail-Followup-To: Mike Castle , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 10:47:49PM -0400, John Chris Wren wrote: > I would have said just the opposite. That if it you have a large number of > handles you're waiting on, and you have to go back through and set the bits > everytime you timeout that you would incur a larger overhead. From the Use a temp fd_set and assignment. fd_set readset; readset=set_to_watch select(n, readset, NULL, NULL, timeout); mrc -- Mike Castle dalgoda@ix.netcom.com www.netcom.com/~dalgoda/ We are all of us living in the shadow of Manhattan. -- Watchmen fatal ("You are in a maze of twisty compiler features, all different"); -- gcc