Alon Ziv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Obviously... since they're handles, not FDs...
> [BTW, are you using Windows' idea of storing the objects in process space,
> in a page that's inaccessible to the app itself, and passing pointers into
> this page as the handles?]
No... I grab a page in kernel space and use it as an array. One problem is
that if an exit occurs, I have to be able to discard all attached objects
after the process's VM has been cleaned up (ie: what if it gets swapped
out?). Plus, mmap can clobber existing mappings, MapViewOfFile can't.
> So what if they aren't files?
Small structures private to my Win32 module.
> I'm afraid I'm not following your logic in this; I believe most Win32 attrs
> can be mapped to more generic abstractions which should be able to exist at
> 'struct file' level.
"Most"...
It'd mean adding extra fields into struct file (and possibly struct inode)
just for the use of this module (which probably wouldn't be accepted).
> (And even if not, a Win32 file handle could just hold two pointers---
No. the extra data has to be accessible from CreateFile (potentially running
in other processes), and this'd mean it'd have to go speculatively searching
all Win32 handle tables currently in use.
> And breaks _completely_ with the existing scheme :-/
So what? This is for a WINE accelerator/Win32 module only. There's already
been an argument over making the whole lot available as general Linux
functionality, but most people said that it'd be a bad idea because it'd not
be portable.
> Huh? Where did you get this?
> Looking at my copy of MSDN (July '00), the PulseEvent remarks more-or-less
> suggest an implementation like
> SetEvent(e)
> ResetEvent(e)
Consider the following:
WAITER 1 WAITER 2 WAITER 3 WAKER
wait-on-event wait-on-event wait-on-event
sleep sleep sleep
PulseEvent
set-event
wake(WAITER 1)
wake(WAITER 2)
wake(WAITER 3)
reset-event
wake wake wake
what-happened? what-happened? what-happened?
nothing! nothing! nothing!
sleep sleep sleep
All three waiters should wake up with a note that the event triggered, but
they don't. Plus a fourth waiter who begins to wait on the event after the
set-event is issue probably shouldn't wake up.
> I wonder if it's possible to add _just_ this to poll()...
No... there's no way to pass this to poll (or select).
Better to add a WaitForMultipleObjects() syscall and have that call
do_select() with a flag.
David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
