On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 04:09 -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Jan 24, 2008 17:25 -0700, Zan Lynx wrote: > > Have y'all been following the /dev/mem_notify patches? > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/628653 > > Having the notification be via poll() is a very restrictive processing > model. Having the notification be via a signal means that any kind of > process (and not just those that are event loop driven) can register > a callback at some arbitrary point in the code and be notified. I > don't object to the poll() interface, but it would be good to have a > signal mechanism also. The commentary on the mem_notify threads claimed that the signal is easily provided by setting up the file handle for SIGIO. Yeah. Here it is...copied from email written by KOSAKI Motohiro: implement FASYNC capability to /dev/mem_notify. <usage example> fd = open("/dev/mem_notify", O_RDONLY); fcntl(fd, F_SETOWN, getpid()); flags = fcntl(fd, F_GETFL); fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, flags|FASYNC); /* when low memory, receive SIGIO */ </usage example> -- Zan Lynx <zlynx@xxxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
