[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A95900D.9090201@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:42:05 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
CC: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...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 08/26/2009 10:13 PM, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> Ok, so why not using the eventfd counter as state?
> On the device side:
>
> void write_state(int sfd, int state) {
> u64 cnt;
>
> /* Clear the current state, sfd is in non-blocking mode */
> read(sfd,&cnt, sizeof(cnt));
> /* Writes new state */
> cnt = 1 + !!state;
> write(sfd,&cnt, sizeof(cnt));
> }
>
>
> On the hypervisor side:
>
> int read_state(int sfd) {
> u64 cnt;
>
> read(sfd,&cnt, sizeof(cnt));
> return state - 1;
> }
>
>
Hadn't though of read+write as set. While the 1+ is a little ugly, it's
workable.
I see no kernel equivalent to read(), but that's easily done.
--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.
--
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