| |||||||||||||
Looking at inotify againLooking at inotify againPosted Jul 7, 2005 15:23 UTC (Thu) by balbir (guest, #19399)Parent article: Looking at inotify again
I wonder how many notify interfaces we will need. Currently I think there is demand for the following
1. User level IRQ notification
May be we should work on combining them into one single interface so that it is easier to maintain and program
(Log in to post comments)
Looking at inotify again Posted Jul 7, 2005 20:21 UTC (Thu) by gregkh (subscriber, #8) [Link] Why do we need userlevel IRQ notification?
Anyway, you know that patches are always gladly accepted :)
Looking at inotify again Posted Jul 8, 2005 4:08 UTC (Fri) by balbir (guest, #19399) [Link] I was under the impression that the X11 folks wanted IRQ notifications for writing good X screen drivers. In addition, it would make it easier to move some drivers to user space with the capability to receive user level IRQ notifications and implement user level IRQ handlers.
Good point about the patch, assuming that people hardly disable networking, I was wondering if it is a good idea to write an extensible version of rtnetlink to provide user space events. What I liked about rtnetlink is that it imposes no format on the communication except for the rtattr.
Looking at inotify again Posted Jul 19, 2005 6:58 UTC (Tue) by renox (subscriber, #23785) [Link] I wonder if X's need of userspace driver is legitimate, I thought there was a push to let the kernel handle the driver to avoid duplication of effort.
IMHO, this is the best solution.
|
|||||||||||||