From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCNUhGIzFRTEAbKEI=?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6] watch64: generic variable monitoring system Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 04:07:27 +0900 (JST) Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20040904.040727.72671952.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> References: <200409031307.01240.jeffpc@optonline.net> <200409031319.24863.jeffpc@optonline.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org Return-path: To: jeffpc@optonline.net In-Reply-To: <200409031319.24863.jeffpc@optonline.net> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org In article <200409031319.24863.jeffpc@optonline.net> (at Fri, 03 Sep 2004 13:19:24 -0400), "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" says: > The watch64 system allows the programmer to specify the approximate interval > at which he wants his variables checked. If he tries to specify shorter > interval than the minimum a default value of HZ/10 is used. To minimize > locking, RCU and seqlock are used. On 64-bit systems, all is optimized away. I agree with the basic principle; it is very similar to mine. However, it is too complicated isn't it? I would do per-"table" registration (instead of per-variable one); watch64_getval() seems very ugly to me... -- Hideaki YOSHIFUJI @ USAGI Project GPG FP: 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF 80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA