linux-kernel - Re: [KVM PATCH 2/3] eventfd: add a notifier mechanism

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0904230922180.18603@makko.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date:	Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To:	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
cc:	kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	avi@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [KVM PATCH 2/3] eventfd: add a notifier mechanism

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Gregory Haskins wrote:

> This allows synchronous notifications to register with the eventfd
> infrastructure.  Unlike traditional vfs based eventfd readers, notifiees
> do not implictly clear the counter on reception.  However, the clearing
> is primarily important to allowing threads to block waiting for events
> anyway, so its an acceptable trade-off since blocking doesn't apply to
> notifiers.

Do you really need to add a notifier? Eventfd already has a wait queue, 
and we support callback-based wakeups, so is there any reason we shouldn't 
use those and rely on the already existing wakeups?



- Davide


--
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/