From: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com>
To: Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru>,
Guillaume Thouvenin <guillaume.thouvenin@bull.net>,
Michael Kerrisk <michael.kerrisk@gmx.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/3] Process events biarch bug: New process events connector value
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 16:54:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1151452465.1412.35.camel@linuxchandra> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1151444382.21787.1858.camel@stark>
On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 14:39 -0700, Matt Helsley wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 12:14 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 04:49 -0700, Matt Helsley wrote:
> > > "Deprecate" existing Process Events connector interface and add a new one
> > > that works cleanly on biarch platforms.
> > >
> > > Any expansion of the previous event structure would break userspace's ability
> > > to workaround the biarch incompatibility problem. Hence this patch creates a
> > > new interface and generates events (for both when necessary).
> >
> > Is there a reason why the # of listeners part is removed (basically the
> > LISTEN/IGNORE) ? and why as part of this patch ?
>
> Michael Kerrisk had some objections to LISTEN/IGNORE and I've been
> looking into making a connector function that would replace them. They
> exist primarily to improve performance by avoiding the memory allocation
> in cn_netlink_send() when there are no listeners.
If it not related this bug, can you please separate them.
<snip>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose....
- sekharan@us.ibm.com | .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-06-27 23:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20060627112644.804066367@localhost.localdomain>
2006-06-27 11:47 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/3] Process events biarch bug: Name process event data union type and annotate for compatibility Matt Helsley
2006-06-27 11:48 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/3] Process events biarch bug: Process events timestamp bug Matt Helsley
2006-06-27 11:49 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/3] Process events biarch bug: New process events connector value Matt Helsley
2006-06-27 19:14 ` Chandra Seetharaman
2006-06-27 21:39 ` Matt Helsley
2006-06-27 23:54 ` Chandra Seetharaman [this message]
2006-06-28 1:29 ` Matt Helsley
2006-06-28 5:53 ` Evgeniy Polyakov
2006-06-30 8:46 ` Evgeniy Polyakov
2006-06-28 6:00 Albert Cahalan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1151452465.1412.35.camel@linuxchandra \
--to=sekharan@us.ibm.com \
--cc=guillaume.thouvenin@bull.net \
--cc=johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthltc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=michael.kerrisk@gmx.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox