On 10/1/20 1:03 AM, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:34:51PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> Hi Tycho,
>>
>> Thanks for taking time to look at the page!
>>
>> On 9/30/20 5:03 PM, Tycho Andersen wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 01:07:38PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
[...]
>>>> ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
>>>> │FIXME │
>>>> ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
>>>> │Interestingly, after the event had been received, │
>>>> │the file descriptor indicates as writable (verified │
>>>> │from the source code and by experiment). How is this │
>>>> │useful? │
>>>
>>> You're saying it should just do EPOLLOUT and not EPOLLWRNORM? Seems
>>> reasonable.
>>
>> No, I'm saying something more fundamental: why is the FD indicating as
>> writable? Can you write something to it? If yes, what? If not, then
>> why do these APIs want to say that the FD is writable?
>
> You can't via read(2) or write(2), but conceptually NOTIFY_RECV and
> NOTIFY_SEND are reading and writing events from the fd. I don't know
> that much about the poll interface though -- is it possible to
> indicate "here's a pseudo-read event"? It didn't look like it, so I
> just (ab-)used POLLIN and POLLOUT, but probably that's wrong.
I think the POLLIN thing is fine.
So, I think maybe I now understand what you intended with setting
POLLOUT: the notification has been received ("read") and now the
FD can be used to NOTIFY_SEND ("write") a response. Right?
If that's correct, I don't have a problem with it. I just wonder:
is it useful? IOW: are there situations where the process doing the
NOTIFY_SEND might want to test for POLLOUT because the it doesn't
know whether a NOTIFY_RECV has occurred?
Thanks,
Michael
--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
