Re: [PATCH 1/1] eventfd: implementation of EFD_MASK flag

[Martin Sustrik <sustrik@250bpm.com>]

Hi Andy,

On 08/02/13 02:03, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> There may be some
> advantage to adding (later on, if needed) an option to change the
> flags set in:
>
> +		if (waitqueue_active(&ctx->wqh))
> +			wake_up_locked_poll(&ctx->wqh,
> +				(unsigned long)ctx->mask.events);
>
> (i.e. to allow the second parameter to omit some bits that were
> already signaled.)  Allowing write to write a bigger struct in the
> future won't break anything.

I think I don't follow. Either the second parameter is supposed to be 
*newly* signaled events, in which case the events that were already 
signaled in the past should be ommitted, or it is meant to be *all* 
signaled events, in which case the current implementation is OK.

Martin