Gregory Haskins wrote:
But eventfd_signal basically marries us to eventfd.
Well, only if we expect the fd to have eventfd semantics. There are
advantages to doing so, as we have discussed, because things like AIO
can polymorhpically signal an interrupt without even knowing whats
behind the eventfd. But this isn't a strict requirement to support
AIO. Really all we need is a way for both kernel and userspace to
signal. Perhaps I should export an "irqfd_signal()" function from kvm,
which today will map to eventfd_signal(), and tomorrow to ??. I don't
think using f_ops->write() is an option for in-kernel signaling, so we
need some kind of interface here.
Does that sound reasonable?
irqfd_signal() ties the user of irqfd to kvm. I want this user to be
independent of kvm; it should work with eventfd, kvm's eventfd
lookalike (if we move away from eventfd) or pipes.
So what is your proposal for such interface?
->write().
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
