From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422738AbWF0Xy3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 19:54:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422740AbWF0Xy3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 19:54:29 -0400 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.149]:29350 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422738AbWF0Xy2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 19:54:28 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/3] Process events biarch bug: New process events connector value From: Chandra Seetharaman Reply-To: sekharan@us.ibm.com To: Matt Helsley Cc: LKML , Evgeniy Polyakov , Guillaume Thouvenin , Michael Kerrisk In-Reply-To: <1151444382.21787.1858.camel@stark> References: <20060627112644.804066367@localhost.localdomain> <1151408975.21787.1815.camel@stark> <1151435679.1412.16.camel@linuxchandra> <1151444382.21787.1858.camel@stark> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: IBM Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 16:54:25 -0700 Message-Id: <1151452465.1412.35.camel@linuxchandra> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 (2.0.4-7) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose.... - sekharan@us.ibm.com | .......you may get it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------