From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [take5 0/4] kevent: Generic event handling mechanism. Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:52:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20060808.225230.104030885.davem@davemloft.net> References: <11550230861383@2ka.mipt.ru> <44D902EF.8070809@oracle.com> <20060809053113.GB17446@2ka.mipt.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: zach.brown@oracle.com, drepper@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from dsl027-180-168.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.27.180.168]:60550 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030489AbWHIFw3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Aug 2006 01:52:29 -0400 To: johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru In-Reply-To: <20060809053113.GB17446@2ka.mipt.ru> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Evgeniy Polyakov Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 09:31:14 +0400 I am burnt out on reviewing this endless kevent patch resubmissions, so I will only comment briefly. > That's why I'm asking for what exactly should be moved into the > patchset. I.e. do we need poll/select (it is the same as what epoll > does), timer, network AIO? How they should be splitted? I would suggest removing all of the file I/O and network AIO since they are logically seperate from kevent. > Using LIST_POISON is a flag that kevent is in appropriate queue or not, > I can add some flag into the structure, but why, if it is clear just by > looking into list's pointers. What is wrong with using list_empty() as this indicator?