Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 14:57:31 +0200 (CEST) From: Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek@NetBSD.org> To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: fifo kqfilter change in rev. 1.54? Message-ID: <200209231257.g8NCvV809546@s102-n054.tele2.cz>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,
I'm currently testing stuff on NetBSD kqueue branch, and came over
FreeBSD change in rev. 1.54 of src/sys/fs/fifofs/fifo_vnops.c .
I can't figure out what this change exactly fixes, since
things seem to work fine without the change - the code on NetBSD
kqueue branch uses still fi_readsock always, and this seems to work
fine for both EVFILT_READ and EVFILT_WRITE.
At the very least, I believe the change should have been to use fi_writesock
for EVFILT_READ and fi_readsock for EVFILT_WRITE. Then the explicit
added sorwakeup() calls would probably not be necessary, since the
wakeup would be done by generic code.[*]
But in any case, using fi_readsock should be fine.
What am I missing here?
Thanks for reply,
Jaromir
P.S. I also believe the added so?wakeup() calls should use fi_readsock
in one case and fi_writesock in the other, not fi_writesock
in both cases.
--
Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek@NetBSD.org> http://www.NetBSD.org/
-=- We should be mindful of the potential goal, but as the tantric -=-
-=- Buddhist masters say, ``You may notice during meditation that you -=-
-=- sometimes levitate or glow. Do not let this distract you.'' -=-
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200209231257.g8NCvV809546>