On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 10:30 +0000, Eric Wong wrote: > Nathaniel Yazdani <n1ght.4nd....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Eric Wong <normalper...@yhbt.net> wrote: > > > Nathaniel Yazdani <n1ght.4nd....@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> +asmlinkage long sys_epoll(int ep, struct epoll __user *in, > > >> + unsigned int inc, struct epoll __user *out, > > >> + unsigned int outc, int timeout); > > > > > > I can understand using the new struct for 'in', but 'out' could just be > > > "struct epoll_event *" like sys_epoll_wait, right? > > > > > >> asmlinkage long sys_epoll_wait(int epfd, struct epoll_event __user > > >> *events, > > > > Yeah and I went back and forth on that, it just seemed to me that the > > inconsistency could be confusing to others... maybe instead of defining a > > new > > struct to begin with it might make me sense to just have an 'infd' array of > > file > > descriptors in addition to an 'in' array of epoll_event struct > > (obviously the length > > of these would be identical). > > I don't think a separate array for in is a good idea, too error prone > and you lose locality. > > For output, some users either end up allocating more memory/retrieve > fewer items with the larger struct for *out. Well having a different struct for input and output would be just as error prone too, plus the file descriptor of a triggered event is highly relevant information.
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
