FreeLists / openbeosnetteam / [openbeosnetteam] Re: Now it seems this thing works! :)

[philippe.houdoin@xxxxxxx]

> I *REALLY* think select() should be provided in a separate library. 

Me too, it should be in libroot.so.
Problem is, until we can use newos as kernel, we're with BeOS kernel.
I mean, BeOS kernelS:

- BeOS kernel <= R5.0.3 don't export a select() call to userland, 
the only public select() is Be's libnet.so but it works only with 
net_server's sockets. We can't use this one.

So, to add real select() support to OBOS pre-R1 using BeOS <= R5.0.3 
kernels, we'll need to move the select() call 
currently in net_kit/source/libnet/libnet.c to the OBOS equivalent of 
libroot.so. Problem is there's no OBOS libroot.so for BeOS kernel!

Well, yes, there is (Be release the libroot.so source code), 
but nobody care to add to the OBOS repository (yet?).
I guess building OBOS libroot.so will start with 
OBOS NewOS kernel move... not before.

- BeOS kernel > R5.0.3 (aka BONE & Co): the select() is already there, 
in it's libroot.so, and works well.
In fact, the link stage of test app may even find select() in libroot.so 
*before* our own libnet.so one's...

So, for R5.0.3- systems, we offer a better libnet.so with better select() 
support, but nothing more. As no non-BONE apps could use 
select() on file descriptor, I don't see a big problem here ;-)

And for R5.0.4+ systems, we'll use the kernel/libroot.so select() call.

So, maybe we should inclose the select() call support in libnet.so 
between a #if BEOS_KERNEL_VERSION < 0x0504 ... #endif

> [/boot/home/development/cvs/openbeos/net_kit/source/apps]> ./test1
> Thread 1, starting test...
> Thread 2, starting test...
> Thread 1:
>        sockets created :   201
>        test time       :    10 seconds
>        average         :    20 sockets/sec
> Thread 2:
>        sockets created :   202
>        test time       :    10 seconds
>        average         :    20 sockets/sec
> Test complete. 
> 
> This test uses 100% of my CPU (PIII 800). Is this expected?

Yes. A 90% idle CPU is waste ;-)

> In a few words... David, you *ROCK*.

Could I join you Bruno on this sentence?
:-)

-Philippe.