On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 04:09 -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Jan 24, 2008 17:25 -0700, Zan Lynx wrote: > > Have y'all been following the /dev/mem_notify patches? > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/628653 > > Having the notification be via poll() is a very restrictive processing > model. Having the notification be via a signal means that any kind of > process (and not just those that are event loop driven) can register > a callback at some arbitrary point in the code and be notified. I > don't object to the poll() interface, but it would be good to have a > signal mechanism also.
The commentary on the mem_notify threads claimed that the signal is
easily provided by setting up the file handle for SIGIO.
Yeah. Here it is...copied from email written by KOSAKI Motohiro:
implement FASYNC capability to /dev/mem_notify.
<usage example>
fd = open("/dev/mem_notify", O_RDONLY);
fcntl(fd, F_SETOWN, getpid());
flags = fcntl(fd, F_GETFL);
fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, flags|FASYNC); /* when low memory, receive SIGIO */
</usage example>
--
Zan Lynx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
