On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > If we let the caller call fd_install(), then it may be messed up WRT
> > cleanup (fd, file, inode).
>
> Yes, that is a tiny bit tricky (need to call put_unused_fd() if you
> don't install the fd).
>
> > How about removing the inode pointer handou
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Roland Dreier wrote:
> >
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs-2.6.git;a=commit;h=49be4f8114e6ff0efdab10ebba2493fb67bc3034
>
> Actually, looking closer at the kvm changes here, I think that
> create_vcpu_fd() needs the same treatment as kvm_dev_ioctl_create_v
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > > The anonymous inodes interface anon_inode_getfd() calls fd_install()
> > > for the newly created fd, which does not work for some use cases where
> > > the caller must do futher initialization before exposing the file to
> > > userspace. This is
[CC-ing Al too]
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Roland Dreier wrote:
> The anonymous inodes interface anon_inode_getfd() calls fd_install()
> for the newly created fd, which does not work for some use cases where
> the caller must do futher initialization before exposing the file to
> userspace. This is a
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> /* Your eventfd create/setup function (modulo error checks) */
> void setup_eventfd(struct your_ctx *c) {
> int fd;
>
> c->rcb.proc = rcb_callback;
> fd = eventfd_create(0, &c->rcb);
>
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 May 2007, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >
> >
> > > IMO doing eventfd_fget() asap is best. I much prefer refcounted pointers
> > > to
> > > handles in the kernel: it's e
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Avi Kivity wrote:
> IMO doing eventfd_fget() asap is best. I much prefer refcounted pointers to
> handles in the kernel: it's easier to see what things point to, and there is
> to context needed for dereferencing.
There are concerns (from Al and Christoph) about file lifetim
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 12:18:17PM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> > >>> On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 11:40 AM, in message
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Davide Libenzi
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
&g
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >>> On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 3:45 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >> Signed- off- by: Gregory Haskins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> drivers/kvm/kvm.h |1 +
> >>
On Mon, 14 May 2007, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> Thanks Davide,
> That is very helpful. Is there any reason why we can't export
> eventfd_signal() and eventfd_fget() to modules?
I'll push a patch for that.
- Davide
-
T
On Mon, 14 May 2007, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >>> On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 1:23 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Do you close the signaled fd after receiving the signal/event? If you
> >> don't close it, eventfd will always return ready (POLLIN
On Mon, 14 May 2007, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 May 2007, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Gregory Haskins wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Is having a read() (or a write()) actually necessary?
> > > >
On Mon, 14 May 2007, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Gregory Haskins wrote:
> > >
> > > Is having a read() (or a write()) actually necessary?
> > >
> >
> > Based on what I know: yes. It could be a case of ignorance, however ;)
> >
> > Heres why I think its necessary: You need poll to simply tell you
13 matches
Mail list logo
