[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:56:49 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
Subject: Re: [KVM PATCH v9 2/2] KVM: add iosignalfd support
On 07/07/2009 03:51 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
>>> Seriously, why add artificial limitations?
>>> IMO, addr=0,len=1 and addr=0,len=2 should not conflict.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> They should not conflict, but a two byte write need not hit a one byte
>> registration.
>>
>
> Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. I think it should be possible to
> create 2 fds:
>
> addr = 0
> len = 1
> addr = 0
> len = 2
> and at most one will ever trigger.
>
> But current code will not let you create the second one.
>
I agree then. Good catch.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists