Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935796AbWK1KOu (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2006 05:14:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S935801AbWK1KOu (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2006 05:14:50 -0500 Received: from relay.2ka.mipt.ru ([194.85.82.65]:30376 "EHLO 2ka.mipt.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935796AbWK1KOp (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2006 05:14:45 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:13:27 +0300 From: Evgeniy Polyakov To: Ulrich Drepper Cc: David Miller , Andrew Morton , netdev , Zach Brown , Christoph Hellwig , Chase Venters , Johann Borck , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Garzik , Alexander Viro Subject: Re: [take24 0/6] kevent: Generic event handling mechanism. Message-ID: <20061128101327.GE15083@2ka.mipt.ru> References: <45633049.2000209@redhat.com> <20061121174334.GA25518@2ka.mipt.ru> <4563FD53.7030307@redhat.com> <20061122120933.GA32681@2ka.mipt.ru> <20061122121516.GA7229@2ka.mipt.ru> <4564CE00.9030904@redhat.com> <20061123122225.GD20294@2ka.mipt.ru> <456605EA.5060601@redhat.com> <20061124105856.GE13600@2ka.mipt.ru> <456B2D2B.9080502@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <456B2D2B.9080502@redhat.com> 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, 28 Nov 2006 13:13:28 +0300 (MSK) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1291 Lines: 34 On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 10:23:39AM -0800, Ulrich Drepper (drepper@redhat.com) wrote: > Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > > > >With provided patch it is possible to wakeup 'for-free' - just call > >kevent_ctl(ready) with zero number of ready events, so thread will be > >awakened if it was in poll(kevent_fd), kevent_wait() or > >kevent_get_events(). > > Yes, I realize that. But I wrote something else: > > >> Rather than mark an existing entry as ready, how about a call to > >> inject a new ready event? > >> > >> This would be useful to implement functionality at userlevel and > >> still use an event queue to announce the availability. Without this > >> type of functionality we'd need to use indirect notification via > >> signal or pipe or something like that. > > This is still something which is wanted. Why do we want to inject _ready_ event, when it is possible to mark event as ready and wakeup thread parked in syscall? > -- > ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, > CA ❖ -- 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/