On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
This is a backport of commit: 03db343a6320f780937078433fa7d8da955e6fceIt's the same thing. Unless there are *real* problems in KVM due to the
modified in a way that introduces some code duplication on the one hand,
but reduces the risk of regressing existing eventfd users on the other
KVM needs a wait to atomically remove themselves from the eventfd
->poll() wait queue head, in order to handle correctly their IRQfd
This patch introduces such API, plus a way to read an eventfd from its
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin<mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
Avi, Davidel, how about only including the following part for -stable
then? Reason is, I still would like to be able to use irqfd there, and
getting spurious interrupts 100% of times unmask is done isn't a very
good idea IMO ...
spurious ints, I still think this is .33 material.