From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [patch] eventfd - revised interface and cleanups (2nd rev) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:44:16 -0700 Message-ID: <20090623144416.04c34268.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20090623131239.711d9f83.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090623142511.c9068655.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, avi@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, ghaskins@novell.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, bcrl@kvack.org To: Davide Libenzi Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:37322 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751527AbZFWVpE (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:45:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:25:05 -0700 (PDT) Davide Libenzi wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > That isn't for us to decide. Entire syscalls can be disabled in config. > > That is not a well defined separate syscall though. It's a member/feature > of the aiocb. I don't know what this means, really. AIO eventfd support is a relatively recently added enhancement to AIO, is it not? Applications which continue to use the pre-May07 AIO features will continue to work as before (they darn well better). So for such applications, AIO=y/EVENTFD=n kernels are usable and useful, and eliminating this option is a loss? Either way, I believe that this change should be unbundled from the unrelated KVM one so we can handle it separately.