On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 15:45:22 -0700 "Jouni Malinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 03:28:53PM -0700, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 09:00:51 -0700, "Jouni Malinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > That could be blocking an ioctl call for couple of seconds > > > and would be quite horrible for single threaded programs. > > > > I would say that waiting for couple of seconds in the kernel would > > be quite wonderful for single threaded programs, when you consider > > the alternative. I can guess now what your concern is, even though > > you failed to articulate it: a single-threaded GUI application, > > which cannot respond to events when blocked in getting scan results. > > If that's the case, we should be looking at having both blocking > > and non-blocking calls to fetch scan results. > > No, my main concern was single-threaded design in wpa_suppliant.. If the > ioctl call is blocking, I would need to create a new (well, the first > additional) thread just for this use. Without that, the blocking call > would also block all control interface commands (interaction with > external programs) and controlling of other interfaces (if more than one > is used). > > > > [...] but what if some other program were > > > to request a new scan between the completion event and the attempt to > > > read the previous scan results.. > > > > I do not see how this is relevant. > > That would make the application wait even if it properly waited for the > scan complete event before reading the scan result. If the get-results > call is blocking, the single-threaded application simply don't have any > easy way of getting the results while being able to do something else > while waiting for the scan to complete. Furthermore, blocking ioctl > handlers is not really something I would like to see in the kernel.. > Aren't there some locks/semaphores/etc. kept for some cases? > Sounds like you want a message interface like netlink, not ioctl's. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
