On Thu, 11 May 2017, Martin Wilck wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 09:21 -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Thu, May 11 2017 at 5:43am -0400,
> > Martin Wilck wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 11:39 +0200, Martin Wilck wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 12:10 -0700, Andy
On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 14:46 -0700, Andy Grover wrote:
>
> a) Application notes initial event_nrs for all relevant devices
> while (1)
> b) Application calls ARM_POLL
> c) Application gets updated event_nrs from LIST_DEVICES and
> handles
> d) Application calls poll()
>
> If events
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 09:30:43PM +0200, Martin Wilck wrote:
> I see - but I don't see yet how the ioctl approach (or the
> close()/open() based one, for that matter) would avoid this race.
> 1) application processes event N
> 2) event N+1 arrives in the kernel
> 3) user space issues ioctl or
On 05/11/2017 12:30 PM, Martin Wilck wrote:
I see - but I don't see yet how the ioctl approach (or the
close()/open() based one, for that matter) would avoid this race.
1) application processes event N
2) event N+1 arrives in the kernel
3) user space issues ioctl or close()/open()
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:45:27PM +0200, Martin Wilck wrote:
> Except that it can cause userspace to miss events, as I tried to point
> out in my reply to Mike.
It should never miss new events. Because the calls are separate,
occasionally it might trigger when it didn't need to, but userspace
On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 21:21 +0100, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 09:49:14PM +0200, Martin Wilck wrote:
> > Here is an idea: the best way to avoid the race mentioned by Mike
> > might
> > be to set priv->global_event_nr to the highest event nr reported by
> > the
> >
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 09:49:14PM +0200, Martin Wilck wrote:
> Here is an idea: the best way to avoid the race mentioned by Mike might
> be to set priv->global_event_nr to the highest event nr reported by the
> DM_LIST_DEVICES ioctl when this ioctl returns. DM_LIST_DEVICES would
> then represent
On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 11:10 -0700, Andy Grover wrote:
>
> I think getting one readiness notification for multiple events should
> be ok.
>
> But, the semantics of poll(2) are level-triggered, meaning if a fd
> is
> ready then it will stay ready through multiple invocations of poll()
> until
On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 09:21 -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Thu, May 11 2017 at 5:43am -0400,
> Martin Wilck wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 11:39 +0200, Martin Wilck wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 12:10 -0700, Andy Grover wrote:
> > > > From: Mikulas Patocka
On 05/11/2017 06:21 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
On Thu, May 11 2017 at 5:43am -0400,
Martin Wilck wrote:
On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 11:39 +0200, Martin Wilck wrote:
On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 12:10 -0700, Andy Grover wrote:
From: Mikulas Patocka
This is the very
On Thu, May 11 2017 at 5:43am -0400,
Martin Wilck wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 11:39 +0200, Martin Wilck wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 12:10 -0700, Andy Grover wrote:
> > > From: Mikulas Patocka
> > >
> > > This is the very simple patch for polling
On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 11:39 +0200, Martin Wilck wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 12:10 -0700, Andy Grover wrote:
> > From: Mikulas Patocka
> >
> > This is the very simple patch for polling on the
> > /dev/mapper/control
> > device. The select or poll function waits until any
On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 12:10 -0700, Andy Grover wrote:
> From: Mikulas Patocka
>
> This is the very simple patch for polling on the /dev/mapper/control
> device. The select or poll function waits until any event happens on
> any
> dm device since opening the
13 matches
Mail list logo