[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABkLObqCWn3WZzs-eMYaBAOYuM6VKxL1Cg1j9Ft05JAjENJXnw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 14:01:36 +0200
From: Christian Riesch <christian.riesch@...cron.at>
To: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...eenne.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pps: Add support for read operations and return a useful
value in poll
[sent again with Rodolfo in the list of recipients, something went
wrong, sorry!]
Hi Rodolfo,
Thanks for your reply!
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...eenne.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 11:31:22PM +0200, Christian Riesch wrote:
>> The PPS_FETCH ioctl in drivers/pps/pps.c blocks until a new PPS event
>> occurs, then returns the time stamp data. While this is fine for
>> lots of applications, sometimes it would be nice if the poll system
>> call and a subsequent read could be used to obtain the pps data.
>
> Nak. The read syscall can't be forced to return fix amount of
> data.
I just copied/modified the behavior of ptp_read() in drivers/ptp/ptp_chardev.c:
if (cnt % sizeof(struct ptp_extts_event) != 0)
return -EINVAL;
There the amount of data is forced to be a multiple of sizeof(struct
ptp_extts_event). But if you prefer an ioctl, I can change that of
course.
> Use a dedicated ioctl instead.
Is it ok to pair POLLIN | POLLRDNORM in the poll function with an
ioctl? Or should returning POLLIN | POLLRDNORM mean that a read() will
not block? Should I use POLLPRI instead or something else?
Regards, Christian
--
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