![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 12:01:05AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Maandag 16 Mai 2005 22:58, Greg KH wrote: > > On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 03:05:06PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > 2. sys_spufs_run(int fd, __u32 pc, __u32 *new_pc, __u32 *status): > > > pro: > > > - strong types > > > - can have both input and output arguments > > > contra: > > > - does not fit file system semantics well > > > - bad for prototyping > > > > I suggest you do this. Based on what you say you want the code to do, I > > agree, write() doesn't really work out well > > The syscall approach has another small disadvantage in that I need to > do a callback registration mechanism for it if I want to have spufs as > a loadable module. I could of course require spufs to be builtin, but > that complicates prototype testing (as mentioned) and enlarges combined > pSeries/powermac/BPA distro kernels. Huh? We can handle syscalls in modules these days pretty simply. Look at how nfs and others do it. > I think I'll leave the ioctl for now and add a note saying that I need > to replace it with a syscall or the write/read or lseek/read based > approach when I arrive at a more feature complete point. Nah, make it a syscall :) > > (but it might, and if you > > want an example of how to do it, look at the ibmasm driver, it > > implements write() in a way much like what you are wanting to do.) > > That would be the same write/read combination as Ben's second > proposal and the nfsctl file system, right? Yes. > > > My solution was to force the dentries in each directory to be > > > present. When the directory is created, the files are already > > > there and unlinking a single file is impossible. To destroy the > > > spu context, the user has to rmdir it, which will either remove > > > all files in there as well or fail in the case that any file is > > > still open. > > > > Ick. > > > > > Of course that is not really Posix behavior, but it avoids some > > > other pitfalls. > > > > Go with a syscall :) > > Sorry, I'm not following that reasoning. How does a syscall help > with the problem of atomic context destruction? Sorry, I thought they were referring to the same issue. greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-05-17 00:39 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||