[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090204152434.c8f65d52.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 15:24:34 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
mtk.manpages@...il.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] eventfd semaphore-like behavior
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 15:18:43 -0800 (PST)
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org> wrote:
> > > Simple test here:
> > >
> > > http://www.xmailserver.org/eventfd-sem.c
> > >
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
> > >
> > > +/*
> > > + * CAREFUL: Check include/asm-generic/fcntl.h when defining
> > > + * new flags, since they might collide with O_* ones. We want
> > > + * to re-use O_* flags that couldn't possibly have a meaning
> > > + * from eventfd, in order to leave a free define-space for
> > > + * shared O_* flags.
> > > + */
> > > +#define EFD_SEMAPHORE (1 << 0)
> > > #define EFD_CLOEXEC O_CLOEXEC
> > > #define EFD_NONBLOCK O_NONBLOCK
> > >
> > > +#define EFD_SHARED_FCNTL_FLAGS (O_CLOEXEC | O_NONBLOCK)
> > > +#define EFD_FLAGS_SET (EFD_SHARED_FCNTL_FLAGS | EFD_SEMAPHORE)
> >
> > How would you recommend that userspace determine whether its kernel
> > supports this feature, bearing in mind that someone might backport this
> > patch into arbitrarily earlier kernel versions?
> >
> > What should be userspace's fallback strategy if that support is not
> > present?
>
> #ifdef EFD_SEMAPHORE, maybe?
That's compile-time. People who ship binaries will probably want
to find a runtime thing for back-compatibility.
--
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