[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061128101327.GE15083@2ka.mipt.ru>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:13:27 +0300
From: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Chase Venters <chase.venters@...entec.com>,
Johann Borck <johann.borck@...sedata.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
Alexander Viro <aviro@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [take24 0/6] kevent: Generic event handling mechanism.
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 10:23:39AM -0800, Ulrich Drepper (drepper@...hat.com) wrote:
> Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> >
> >With provided patch it is possible to wakeup 'for-free' - just call
> >kevent_ctl(ready) with zero number of ready events, so thread will be
> >awakened if it was in poll(kevent_fd), kevent_wait() or
> >kevent_get_events().
>
> Yes, I realize that. But I wrote something else:
>
> >> Rather than mark an existing entry as ready, how about a call to
> >> inject a new ready event?
> >>
> >> This would be useful to implement functionality at userlevel and
> >> still use an event queue to announce the availability. Without this
> >> type of functionality we'd need to use indirect notification via
> >> signal or pipe or something like that.
>
> This is still something which is wanted.
Why do we want to inject _ready_ event, when it is possible to mark
event as ready and wakeup thread parked in syscall?
> --
> ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View,
> CA ❖
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
-
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