Re: [PATCH 1/1] eventfd: implementation of EFD_MASK flag

From: Martin Sustrik
Date: Fri Feb 08 2013 - 00:26:52 EST

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->;

(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.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at