From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Martin Sustrik <sustrik@250bpm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] eventfd: implementation of EFD_MASK flag
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 06:26:43 +0100
Message-ID: <51148C93.6020204@250bpm.com>
References: <1360219292-19754-1-git-send-email-sustrik@250bpm.com> <5113FCA7.4020207@mit.edu> <51140A60.4070705@250bpm.com> <CALCETrXEy5hLh6i7nTGH607gnc=kd0S+of9i0-nt828MGwbQZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@taobao.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrXEy5hLh6i7nTGH607gnc=kd0S+of9i0-nt828MGwbQZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

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