From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1767204AbXEBSuf (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 May 2007 14:50:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1767200AbXEBSuf (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 May 2007 14:50:35 -0400 Received: from haxent.com ([65.99.219.155]:1988 "EHLO haxent.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1767204AbXEBSue (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 May 2007 14:50:34 -0400 Message-ID: <4638DD76.7090904@haxent.com.br> Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 15:50:30 -0300 From: Davi Arnaut User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070403) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Davide Libenzi Cc: Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [patch 00/22] pollfs: filesystem abstraction for pollable objects References: <20070502052235.914764000@haxent.com.br> <20070501230529.424f17c6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4638CECE.6060409@haxent.com.br> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Davide Libenzi wrote: > On Wed, 2 May 2007, Davi Arnaut wrote: > > >> Davide Libenzi wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 1 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> David, could you provide some feedback please? The patches are stunningly >>>> free of comments, but you used to do that to me pretty often so my >>>> sympathy >>>> is limited ;) >>>> >>>> >>> You bastard! :) >>> Ok, from a brief look ... >>> >>> [general] >>> The code adds an extra indirection over the already existing >>> file_operations, that IMO already sufficently abstract a file. >>> The compat code, if I read it correctly, does not support files crossing >>> 32/64 bits boundaries (exec or SCM_RIGHTS). >>> >>> >>> >> The compat code is not already finished, I plan to address compat >> code on the next version. >> > > How? Compat on sys_read/sys_write? > > Yes. More on that later. >>> [timers] >>> Returns a structure instead of a 32 bit counter (ala timerfd), and needs >>> extra compat code. >>> >>> >> Yes, but the compat code will be quite small. >> > > Why would that be even justified? > > > Because the developer may need it. >>> [signal] >>> All the discussions that went on for signalfd has been lost. It pins the >>> task struct and it does not handle process detach signaling. >>> >>> >> No, I just went into a different direction. >> > > I'd say wrong, because signalfd addressed valid concerns of quite a few > ppl. > > So in this case I may borrow some signalfd code :-) I really like the signalfd approach, but IMHO the code is quite ugly and duplicates a lot of hairy code. -- Davi Arnaut