On Wed, 2 May 2007, Davi Arnaut wrote:Yes. More on that later.
Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Tue, 1 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:The compat code is not already finished, I plan to address compat
David, could you provide some feedback please? The patches are stunninglyYou bastard! :)
free of comments, but you used to do that to me pretty often so my
sympathy
is limited ;)
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).
code on the next version.
How? Compat on sys_read/sys_write?
Because the developer may need it.[timers]Yes, but the compat code will be quite small.
Returns a structure instead of a 32 bit counter (ala timerfd), and needs
extra compat code.
Why would that be even justified?
So in this case I may borrow some signalfd code :-) I really like the[signal]No, I just went into a different direction.
All the discussions that went on for signalfd has been lost. It pins the
task struct and it does not handle process detach signaling.
I'd say wrong, because signalfd addressed valid concerns of quite a few ppl.