On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 10:01:38AM -0700, Hao Luo wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 8:10 AM David Vernet <void@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 02:13:13PM -0700, Hao Luo wrote: > > > > > > > > Iters allow userspace to kick the kernel, but IMO they're meant to enable > > > > data extraction from the kernel, and dumping kernel data into user-space. > > > > > > Not necessarily extracting data and dumping data. It could be used to > > > do operations on a set of objects, the operation could be > > > notification. Iterating and notifying are orthogonal IMHO. > > > > > > > What I'm proposing is a more generalizable way of driving logic in the > > > > kernel from user-space. > > > > Does that make sense? Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. > > > > > > Yes, sort of. I see the difference between iter and the proposed > > > interface. But I am not clear about the motivation of a new APis for > > > kicking callbacks from userspace. I guess maybe it will become clear, > > > when you publish a concerte RFC of that interface and integrates with > > > your userspace publisher. > > > > Fair enough -- let me remove this from the cover letter in future > > versions of the patch-set. To your point, there's probably little to be > > gained in debating the merits of adding such APIs until there's a > > concrete use-case. > > > > Yep, sounds good. I don't mean to debate :) I would like to help. If > we could build on top of existing infra and make improvements, IMHO it > would be easier to maintain. Anyway, I'm looking forward to your > proposed APIs. Don't worry, I did not take it that you were debating. I very much appreciate your thoughts and help. If and when I send out that RFC patchset, I'll be sure to cc you (if not reach out beforehand as well to discuss).
