> -----Original Message----- > From: Lars-Peter Clausen [mailto:lars@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 7:00 PM > To: Drubin, Daniel > Cc: Jonathan Cameron; Yuniverg, Michael; linux-iio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > Haimovich, Yoav > Subject: Re: working with IIO > > On 08/22/2013 05:48 PM, Drubin, Daniel wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Lars-Peter Clausen [mailto:lars@xxxxxxxxxx] > >> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 6:42 PM > >> To: Drubin, Daniel > >> Cc: Jonathan Cameron; Yuniverg, Michael; linux-iio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > >> Haimovich, Yoav > >> Subject: Re: working with IIO > >> > >> On 08/22/2013 05:16 PM, Drubin, Daniel wrote: > >>> [...] > >>>>> From practical POV we don't have much choice (timeline), since > >>>>> we have to > >>>> reuse driver that is bound to IIO. From principle standpoint I > >>>> somehow fail to see a problem. It seems to me that all state > >>>> handling that an IIO driver needs to do is to keep associations of > >>>> PIDs to sensor rates, configure sensor to the highest rate in the > >>>> list and replicate shared data at rates requested by the clients. > >>>> When a file descriptor is closed (due to process termination or > >>>> another reasons), the actual sensor is re-configured with > >>>> next-highest rate among the open > >> FDs. > >>>> > >>>> But you can't track the configured rate per PID with the current API. > >>>> That's why I keep saying that the API is stateless. You can not > >>>> track state per application without inventing a new API. > >>> > >>> Why can't I during keep a list of PIDs that currently use a sensor > >>> and record > >> current->pid together with "default" rate during the first sampling > >> current->request > >> that doesn't have a matching PID, and in write_raw() handler that > >> updates rate match that current->pid against list of recorded PIDs? I > >> didn't see a possibility that sensor driver's handler may get called > >> in a different context than IIO core fops handler. > >> > >> So each time a process writes to a IIO sysfs file you want to record > >> which value that application wrote. So when I run `for i in `seq 0 > >> 100000`; do echo $i > >>> sampling_frequency; done` I'd end up with a list with one million > >>> entries > >> which will stay in the list forever. > > > > No, there is only one entry per PID. Next value that the same process > writes will replace the previous one, not create a new entry. An entry will be > create only if the write request arrived from a PID currently not in list. > > > > Assume that echo is a /bin/echo, not a shell built-in command. Then indeed a new entry will be created 100000 times. But before creating a new instance of /bin/echo, the previous one will terminate closing all file descriptors. A device driver would miss this event and thus an ability to remove PID from list only if the framework for some reason chose to ban it from knowing. Best regards, Daniel --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Israel (74) Limited This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��(��)�� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
