On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 13:55 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: > > > > It's a bit of a shame that callers which don't care about specific > > pollhup handling have to provide two practically identical handlers. > > Up until this patch, all users either provided no POLLHUP handler, or > provided the same handler for both function pointers.
Yes, and I'm saying it is a shame that those in the latter class now have to provide two callbacks instead of the one they used before. > > Is there any mileage in suggesting that the default callback type used > > for copyfail too might return a bool too in order that they can be > > shared? Even if it must always return True. > > > > Or perhaps some method to indicate that on pollhup, if pollhip callback > > is NULL, use the regular callback? (where some method might be the > > pollhup_callback==NULL itself?) > > Previously, every callback was issued after the datacopier had already > been killed. Now, the pollhup callback is called before the kill has > occurred, and is able to prevent the kill from happening. > > A different and far less invasive approach might be to have a per-fd > revent ignore mask. This would at least allow the callbacks to be made > when the datacopier is in a consistent state. Ian, any thoughts on this? _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
