On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On top of creating an interface which requires a lock, which noone can get > > from the interface itself, since it's not exposed. > > I think here's how KVM gets it: the way it does is by calling poll with > our own poll table, then in poll_queue_proc we get wait queue pointer, > and we use the wait queue. Lock is in there :) Yes, I know you are called locked, but it does not lead to a clean interface. > > I could split the two and have a locked one, and an unlocked one, but that > > looks shitty too (for the above reason). > > Yes, this will work. Thanks! This is a lot more complex than I thought. The wakeup code is already enumerating the list, and doing a wakeup might trigger a secondary enumeration/recursion. Do you really need to "consume" the value from IRQ context, or you can simply "peek" the value, and flush it later? - Davide -- 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
