On 07/04/2011 05:38 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > In general incremental development is great, but I don't want to > fragment the ABI. I'd like to be able to forward an entire PCI BAR over > a pipe. That means sending the address/data/length tuple, and both read > and write support. Would this mean that for sockets we want to remove the 8 byte limit?
Yes. Register a range and support all sizes. Perhaps it merits a separate ioctl.
What about eventfds? We can remove the limit there and assume that if the user asked for more than 8 bytes he knows what he's doing?
I can't really see that as useful. eventfds destroy information; without datamatch, you have no idea what value was written. Even with datamatch, you have no idea how many times it was written. With a range, you also have no idea which address was written. It's pretty meaningless.
-- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- 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
