Re: [take2 1/4] kevent: core files.

2006-08-02 Thread Evgeniy Polyakov
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 12:25:05AM -0700, David Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > From: Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 10:39:18 +0400 > > > u64 is not aligned, so I prefer to use u32 as much as possible. > > We have aligned_u64 exactly for this purpose, netfilter

Re: [take2 1/4] kevent: core files.

2006-08-02 Thread David Miller
From: Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 10:39:18 +0400 > u64 is not aligned, so I prefer to use u32 as much as possible. We have aligned_u64 exactly for this purpose, netfilter makes use of it to avoid the x86_64 vs. x86 u64 alignment discrepency. - To unsubscribe from th

Re: [take2 1/4] kevent: core files.

2006-08-01 Thread Evgeniy Polyakov
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 05:01:38PM -0700, David Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > From: Zach Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 16:56:59 -0700 > > > Even if we only have one syscall with a cmd multiplexer (which I'm not > > thrilled with), we should at least make these arguments

Re: [take2 1/4] kevent: core files.

2006-08-01 Thread Evgeniy Polyakov
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 04:56:59PM -0700, Zach Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > OK, here's some of my reactions to the core part. Thanks. > > +#define KEVENT_SOCKET 0 > > +#define KEVENT_INODE 1 > > +#define KEVENT_TIMER 2 > > +#define KEVENT_POLL

Re: [take2 1/4] kevent: core files.

2006-08-01 Thread David Miller
From: Zach Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 16:56:59 -0700 > Even if we only have one syscall with a cmd multiplexer (which I'm not > thrilled with), we should at least make these arguments explicit in the > system call. It's weird to hide them in a struct. We could also think >

Re: [take2 1/4] kevent: core files.

2006-08-01 Thread Zach Brown
OK, here's some of my reactions to the core part. > +#define KEVENT_SOCKET0 > +#define KEVENT_INODE 1 > +#define KEVENT_TIMER 2 > +#define KEVENT_POLL 3 > +#define KEVENT_NAIO 4 > +#define KEVENT_AIO 5 I guess we can't really avoid some

Re: [take2 1/4] kevent: core files.

2006-08-01 Thread Evgeniy Polyakov
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 10:27:36AM -0400, James Morris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > + u->ready_num = 0; > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_KEVENT_USER_STAT > > > > + u->wait_num = u->im_num = u->total = 0; > > > > +#endif > > > > > > Generally, #ifdefs in the body of the kernel code are dis

Re: [take2 1/4] kevent: core files.

2006-08-01 Thread James Morris
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 09:46:58AM -0400, James Morris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: > > On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > > > > > + u->ready_num = 0; > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_KEVENT_USER_STAT > > > + u->wait_num = u->im_num = u->total = 0; >

Re: [take2 1/4] kevent: core files.

2006-08-01 Thread Evgeniy Polyakov
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 09:46:58AM -0400, James Morris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > > > + u->ready_num = 0; > > +#ifdef CONFIG_KEVENT_USER_STAT > > + u->wait_num = u->im_num = u->total = 0; > > +#endif > > Generally, #ifdefs in the body of the ke

Re: [take2 1/4] kevent: core files.

2006-08-01 Thread James Morris
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > + u->ready_num = 0; > +#ifdef CONFIG_KEVENT_USER_STAT > + u->wait_num = u->im_num = u->total = 0; > +#endif Generally, #ifdefs in the body of the kernel code are discouraged. Can you abstract these out as static inlines? - James -- James

[take2 1/4] kevent: core files.

2006-08-01 Thread Evgeniy Polyakov
This patch includes core kevent files: - userspace controlling - kernelspace interfaces - initialization - notification state machines It might also inlclude parts from other subsystem (like network related syscalls, so it is possible that it will not compile without other patches applied).