Hi Andy, On 08/02/13 02:03, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
There may be some advantage to adding (later on, if needed) an option to change the flags set in: + if (waitqueue_active(&ctx->wqh)) + wake_up_locked_poll(&ctx->wqh, + (unsigned long)ctx->mask.events); (i.e. to allow the second parameter to omit some bits that were already signaled.) Allowing write to write a bigger struct in the future won't break anything.
I think I don't follow. Either the second parameter is supposed to be *newly* signaled events, in which case the events that were already signaled in the past should be ommitted, or it is meant to be *all* signaled events, in which case the current implementation is OK.
Martin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
