On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> After working on that solution a bit I saw it's adding a lot of code and
> complexity for this small issue, and I'm now thinking we may be better
> off with just handling reads twice in case of a signal just between
> socket_write() and socket_read() - once through the socket and once
> through a regular MMIO exit.
I don't really understand the issue so can you elaborate where the
complexity comes from? Why can't we just switch to non-blocking read
and return -ENOSUPP if there's signal_pending() after socket_write()?
AFAICT, we can just let callers of kvm_iodevice_write() and
kvm_iodevice_read() deal with exits, no?
Pekka
--
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
