[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0908241114501.7951@makko.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:25:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, gleb@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] eventfd: new EFD_STATE flag
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 04:40:51PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 08/23/2009 04:36 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> More important here is realization that eventfd is a mutex/semaphore
> >> implementation, not a generic event reporting interface as we are trying
> >> to use it.
> >>
> >
> > Well it is a generic event reporting interface (for example, aio uses it).
>
> Davide, I think it's a valid point. For example, what read on eventfd
> does (zero a counter and return) is not like any semaphore I saw.
Indeed, the default eventfd behaviour is like, well, an event. Signaling
(kernel side) or writing (userspace side), signals the event.
Waiting (reading) it, will reset the event.
If you use EFD_SEMAPHORE, you get a semaphore-like behavior.
Events and sempahores are two widely known and used abstractions.
The EFD_STATE proposed one, well, no. Not at all.
- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists