On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > This is a backport of commit: 03db343a6320f780937078433fa7d8da955e6fce > modified in a way that introduces some code duplication on the one hand, > but reduces the risk of regressing existing eventfd users on the other > hand. > > KVM needs a wait to atomically remove themselves from the eventfd > ->poll() wait queue head, in order to handle correctly their IRQfd > deassign operation. > > This patch introduces such API, plus a way to read an eventfd from its > context. > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > > Avi, Davidel, how about only including the following part for -stable > then? Reason is, I still would like to be able to use irqfd there, and > getting spurious interrupts 100% of times unmask is done isn't a very > good idea IMO ... It's the same thing. Unless there are *real* problems in KVM due to the spurious ints, I still think this is .33 material. - 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
