Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932213AbWHVMkV (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Aug 2006 08:40:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932212AbWHVMkV (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Aug 2006 08:40:21 -0400 Received: from relay.2ka.mipt.ru ([194.85.82.65]:24760 "EHLO 2ka.mipt.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932213AbWHVMkU (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Aug 2006 08:40:20 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:39:32 +0400 From: Evgeniy Polyakov To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: lkml , David Miller , Ulrich Drepper , Andrew Morton , netdev , Zach Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH] kevent_user: remove non-chardev interface Message-ID: <20060822123932.GA27181@2ka.mipt.ru> References: <12345678912345.GA1898@2ka.mipt.ru> <11561555871530@2ka.mipt.ru> <20060822115459.GA10839@infradead.org> <20060822121709.GA4815@2ka.mipt.ru> <20060822122731.GA2994@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060822122731.GA2994@infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.7.5 (2ka.mipt.ru [0.0.0.0]); Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:39:36 +0400 (MSD) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1590 Lines: 38 On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 01:27:31PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig (hch@infradead.org) wrote: > On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 04:17:10PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > > I personally do not have objections against it, but it introduces > > additional complexies - one needs to open /dev/kevent and then perform > > syscalls on top of returuned file descriptor. > > it disalllows > > int fd = sys_kevent_ctl(, KEVENT_CTL_INIT, , ); > > in favour of only > > int fd = open("/dev/kevent", O_SOMETHING); > > which doesn't seem like a problem, especially as I really badly hope > no one will use the syscalls but some library instead. Yep, exactly about above open/kevent_ctl I'm talking. I still have a system which has ioctl() based kevent setup, and it works - I really do not want to rise another flamewar about which approach is better. If no one will complain until tomorrow I will commit it. > In addition to that I'm researching whether there's a better way to > implement the other functionality instead of the two syscalls. But I'd > rather let code speak, so wait for some patches from me on that. There were implementation with pure ioctl() and with one syscall for all oprations (and control block embedded in it), all were rejected in favour of two syscalls, so I'm waiting for your patches. -- Evgeniy Polyakov - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/