Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:35:05 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch 05/11] syslets: core code |
| |
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> But the whole point is that the notion of a "register" is wrong in the > first place. [...]
forget about it then. The thing we "register" is dead-simple:
struct async_head_user { struct syslet_uatom __user **completion_ring; unsigned long ring_size_bytes; unsigned long max_nr_threads; };
this can be passed in to sys_async_exec() as a second pointer, and the kernel can put the expected-completion pointer (and the user ring idx pointer) into its struct atom. It's just a few instructions, and only in the cachemiss case.
that would make completions arbitrarily split-up-able. No registration whatsoever. A waiter could specify which ring's events it is interested in. A 'ring' could be a single-entry thing as well, for a single instance of pending IO.
Ingo - 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/
|  |