From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ulrich Drepper Subject: Re: [take25 1/6] kevent: Description. Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 08:17:30 -0800 Message-ID: <45671B1A.6010202@redhat.com> References: <11641265982190@2ka.mipt.ru> <20061123115504.GB20294@2ka.mipt.ru> <4565FDED.2050003@redhat.com> <200611232249.56886.hhh@imada.sdu.dk> <45662206.1070104@redhat.com> <20061124115004.GB32545@2ka.mipt.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Hans Henrik Happe , David Miller , Andrew Morton , netdev , Zach Brown , Christoph Hellwig , Chase Venters , Johann Borck , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Garzik Return-path: To: Evgeniy Polyakov In-Reply-To: <20061124115004.GB32545@2ka.mipt.ru> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > Ulrich, why didn't you comment on previous interface, which had exact= ly > _one_ index exported to userspace - it is only required to add implic= it > uidx and (if you prefer that way) additional syscall, since in previo= us > interface both waiting and commit was handled by kevent_wait() with > different parameters. If you read my old mails you'll find that I'm pretty consistent wrt to=20 the ring buffer interface. The old code had other problems, not the=20 missing exposure of the uidx value. There is really not much disagreement here. I just don't like the=20 interface unnecessarily and misleadingly large by exposing the uidx=20 value which is not useful to the userlevel code. Just remove the=20 element and stuff it into a kernel-internal struct for the queue and=20 you're done. --=20 =E2=9E=A7 Ulrich Drepper =E2=9E=A7 Red Hat, Inc. =E2=9E=A7 444 Castro S= t =E2=9E=A7 Mountain View, CA =E2=9D=96