On 2011-09-27 16:19, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 09/27/2011 09:11 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 09/27/2011 05:07 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>>
>>> You don't expect to handle EAGAIN with eventfd() whereas you have to handle
>>> it
>>> with pipe().
>>>
>>> Moreover, the eventfd() counter is not lossy (practically speaking) whereas
>>> if
>>> you use pipe() as a counter, it will be lossy in practice.
>>>
>>> This is why posix aio uses pipe() and not eventfd().
>>
>> We could define a qemu_event mechanism that satisfies the least common
>> denominator, and is implemented by eventfd when available.
>>
>> qemu_event_create()
>> qemu_event_signal()
>> qemu_event_wait()
>> qemu_event_poll_add() // registers in main loop
>> qemu_event_poll_del()
>
> See hw/event_notifier.[ch].
That code looks suspicious, btw. It claims things ("we use
EFD_SEMAPHORE") it does not do.
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
