On 07/04/2011 05:52 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > 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. > It is pretty useless, but I didn't want the ioctl to behave differently when passing a socket or an eventfd. If we do go for a new ioctl as you suggested then yes, problem solved.
Yes. I guess it depends on the numbers of if () s introduced into the code. If it starts to feel dirty, split it into a separate ioctl (they can both call common helpers).
It's fine to allow size > 8 for eventfds. Yes it's meaningless, but it's not harmful and I can't see it breaking anything. Note that we may need to change the way we do matches - currently 'size' means the access size, with an exact match on the address, but the new meaning is 'any address from start to start+size-1'.
-- 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
