On 07/04/2011 05:52 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>
> I can't really see that as useful. eventfds destroy information;
> without datamatch, you have no idea what value was written. Even with
> datamatch, you have no idea how many times it was written. With a
> range, you also have no idea which address was written. It's pretty
> meaningless.
>
It is pretty useless, but I didn't want the ioctl to behave differently
when passing a socket or an eventfd.
If we do go for a new ioctl as you suggested then yes, problem solved.
Yes. I guess it depends on the numbers of if () s introduced into the
code. If it starts to feel dirty, split it into a separate ioctl (they
can both call common helpers).
It's fine to allow size > 8 for eventfds. Yes it's meaningless, but
it's not harmful and I can't see it breaking anything. Note that we may
need to change the way we do matches - currently 'size' means the access
size, with an exact match on the address, but the new meaning is 'any
address from start to start+size-1'.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
