[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090204161816.b93a4588.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 16:18:16 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: mtk.manpages@...il.com
Cc: mtk.manpages@...glemail.com, davidel@...ilserver.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] eventfd semaphore-like behavior
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:59:07 +1300
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > 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.
> >>
> >> I dunno. How do they actually do when we add new flags, like the O_ ones?
> >>
> >
> > Dunno. Probably try the syscall and see if it returned -EINVAL. Does
> > that work in this case?
>
> As youll have seen by now, Ulrich and I noted that it works.
I think you means "should work" ;)
We're talking about this, yes?
SYSCALL_DEFINE2(eventfd2, unsigned int, count, int, flags)
{
int fd;
struct eventfd_ctx *ctx;
/* Check the EFD_* constants for consistency. */
BUILD_BUG_ON(EFD_CLOEXEC != O_CLOEXEC);
BUILD_BUG_ON(EFD_NONBLOCK != O_NONBLOCK);
if (flags & ~(EFD_CLOEXEC | EFD_NONBLOCK))
return -EINVAL;
That looks like it should work to me.
--
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