On (Thu) Jan 13 2011 [13:17:22], Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 01/13/2011 09:00 AM, Amit Shah wrote:
Hi,
This patchset adds new interfaces to work with iohandlers. It adds:
int assign_fd_handlers(int fd, IOHandlerOps *ops, void *opaque)
-- Specify io handlers for an fd
int remove_fd_handlers(int fd)
-- Remove fd handlers for fd (mark ioh for deletion)
int set_read_poll_fd_action(int fd, bool enable)
-- Enable or disable the fd_read_poll fd handler
int set_read_fd_action(int fd, bool enable)
-- Enable or disable the fd_read fd handler
int set_write_fd_action(int fd, bool enable)
-- Enable or disable the fd_read fd handler
A new struct, IOHandlerOps, is added, to collect all the ops together
instead of passing individual ones to functions.
Instead of inventing new interfaces, I think we should steal^Wlearn
from established interfaces.
Agreed.
I do also think it'll be worthwhile pulling in one of the libraries to
reduce the amount of qemu-specific code we have in the other cases as
well.
Both libevent and glib have interfaces
that essentially boil down to:
handle add_fd_event(loop, fd, ConditionMask, callback, opaque)
remove_event(loop, handle)
This is quite similar to the Linux polling API.
I don't know what the 'loop' parameter would do, though.
I think that's what we should move to. All the stuff in our current
loop around allowing suppressing of read events is terrible as it
forces the main loop to poll. That makes it impossible to use other
main loops because it's completely unusual.
While setting new APIs possibly requires more discussion if we want to
do it once and right, since it's also an internal API, we can keep
evolving them.
So what's the accepted course of action now - take this new API, rework
it to look like that of some other library's and then rework the
main_loop, keep developing something in parallel till it satisfies
everyone, etc.?
Also -- this patchset was prompted by a bug in qemu chardevs that
freezes guests if they write faster than the chardevs can consume.
What should the strategy on fixing that bug be?