From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1767130AbXEBSXI (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 May 2007 14:23:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1767132AbXEBSXI (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 May 2007 14:23:08 -0400 Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([64.71.152.41]:3629 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1767130AbXEBSXF (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 May 2007 14:23:05 -0400 X-AuthUser: davidel@xmailserver.org Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 11:23:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com To: Davi Arnaut cc: Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [patch 00/22] pollfs: filesystem abstraction for pollable objects In-Reply-To: <4638CECE.6060409@haxent.com.br> Message-ID: References: <20070502052235.914764000@haxent.com.br> <20070501230529.424f17c6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4638CECE.6060409@haxent.com.br> X-GPG-FINGRPRINT: CFAE 5BEE FD36 F65E E640 56FE 0974 BF23 270F 474E X-GPG-PUBLIC_KEY: http://www.xmailserver.org/davidel.asc MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2 May 2007, Davi Arnaut wrote: > Davide Libenzi wrote: > > On Tue, 1 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > > > David, could you provide some feedback please? The patches are stunningly > > > free of comments, but you used to do that to me pretty often so my > > > sympathy > > > is limited ;) > > > > > > > You bastard! :) > > Ok, from a brief look ... > > > > [general] > > The code adds an extra indirection over the already existing > > file_operations, that IMO already sufficently abstract a file. > > The compat code, if I read it correctly, does not support files crossing > > 32/64 bits boundaries (exec or SCM_RIGHTS). > > > > > > The compat code is not already finished, I plan to address compat > code on the next version. How? Compat on sys_read/sys_write? > > [timers] > > Returns a structure instead of a 32 bit counter (ala timerfd), and needs > > extra compat code. > > > > Yes, but the compat code will be quite small. Why would that be even justified? > > [signal] > > All the discussions that went on for signalfd has been lost. It pins the > > task struct and it does not handle process detach signaling. > > > > No, I just went into a different direction. I'd say wrong, because signalfd addressed valid concerns of quite a few ppl. - Davide