Re: [PATCH] sysctl: add support for poll()

[Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>]

On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 12:53:33AM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 04:17, Lucas De Marchi
> <lucas.demarchi@profusion.mobi> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 15:16 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 00:17, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> > We already have several pollable procfs files, such as
> >>> > fs/proc/base.c:mounts_poll() and I think drivers/md has one.  I do
> >>> > think that any work in this area should end up with those custom
> >>> > make-procfs-pollable hacks being identified and removed.
> >>>
> >>> For these files we can probably move the event counter into the
> >>> seq_file structure, and get rid of the dance to kmalloc it and assign
> >>> it to seq_file->private. That might simplify the logic a bit.
> >>>
> >>> [Adding Neil, to get his opinion of moving 'event' so seq_file and get
> >>> rid of the malloc dance]
> >>
> >> I guess, we could do something like this, which looks quite a bit
> >> simpler by moving the poll event counter into the dynamically allocated
> >> seq_file structure itself, instead of having private structures
> >> allocated on top to just carry the counter (patch is just
> >> compile-tested).
> >
> > Now that this cleanup made its way, could we look again to to the
> > pollable sysctl implementation?
> 
> Can we please get support for poll() for /proc/sys files merged? Just
> like we do that for /proc already.
> 
> We like to have notifications triggered by the kernel for selected
> files in /proc/sys.
> 
> I don't really see any technical reasons to hold this back.

Care to resend the patch so we can queue it up for 3.2?

thanks,

greg k-h