Re: [RFC PATCH for-next 2/4] epoll: epoll() syscall declaration

[Nathaniel Yazdani <n1ght.4nd.d4y@gmail.com>]

On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 10:30 +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
> Nathaniel Yazdani <n1ght.4nd.d4y@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote:
> > > Nathaniel Yazdani <n1ght.4nd.d4y@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> +asmlinkage long sys_epoll(int ep, struct epoll __user *in,
> > >> +                       unsigned int inc, struct epoll __user *out,
> > >> +                       unsigned int outc, int timeout);
> > >
> > > I can understand using the new struct for 'in', but 'out' could just be
> > > "struct epoll_event *" like sys_epoll_wait, right?
> > >
> > >>  asmlinkage long sys_epoll_wait(int epfd, struct epoll_event __user *events,
> > 
> > Yeah and I went back and forth on that, it just seemed to me that the
> > inconsistency could be confusing to others... maybe instead of defining a new
> > struct to begin with it might make me sense to just have an 'infd' array of file
> > descriptors in addition to an 'in' array of epoll_event struct
> > (obviously the length
> > of these would be identical).
> 
> I don't think a separate array for in is a good idea, too error prone
> and you lose locality.
> 
> For output, some users either end up allocating more memory/retrieve
> fewer items with the larger struct for *out.
Well having a different struct for input and output would be just as
error prone too, plus the file descriptor of a triggered event is
highly relevant information.