Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 08 Feb 2013 06:26:43 +0100 | From | Martin Sustrik <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] eventfd: implementation of EFD_MASK flag |
| |
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->mask.events); > > (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.
Martin
| |