Re: [patch 3/3] timerfd: Implement write method

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 22 May 2014, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 07:12:30AM +0900, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > 
> > There is a world outside of checkpoint/restore, really.
> 
> Yes, I simply don't know who else might use this write()
> functionality for other purpose, I mean i don't see a
> point to use it for anything else.
> 
> > So what's the semantics of that write function? We really want to have
> > that agreed on and documented in the man page.
> 
> The idea was to provide a way to setup @ticks into (nonzero) value
> which we get from show_fdinfo output. Then when we restore it
> we setup the timer and set @ticks to the value it had at dump
> moment.

That's not describing the semantics. It's describing what you use it
for.
 
> > Right now the write will just update the ticks and nothing else. So
> > what if there is a waiter already? What if there is a timer armed?
> > 
> > Can you please describe how checkpoint/restore is going to use all of
> > this. How is the timer restored and how/when is the reader which was
> > waiting in read/poll at the time of suspend reattached to it.
> 
> Thomas, I see what you mean. Need to think (I must admit I forgot about
> polling of timerfds :( I were to restore timerfds like this
> 
>  - fetch data from fdinfo
>  - use timer_create/settime to arm it
>  - write @ticks then

That's clear to me.

So again you have to answer the questions:

   Do we just allow the write unconditionally?
   Do we care about waking readers/pollers?
 
Whatever the answer is, it needs to be documented coherently in the
changelog, in the code and in the man page.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/