From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Sep 23 5:57:44 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CF4E37B401 for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 05:57:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from t2s2.tele2.cz (t2s2.tele2.cz [213.246.64.34]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0B72543E7B for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 05:57:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dolecek@s102-n054.tele2.cz) Received: (qmail 26694 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2002 12:57:34 -0000 Received: from s102-n054.tele2.cz (213.246.102.54) by s064-n037.tele2.cz with SMTP; 23 Sep 2002 12:57:34 -0000 Received: (from dolecek@localhost) by s102-n054.tele2.cz (8.11.6/8.10.1) id g8NCvV809546 for hackers@freebsd.org; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 14:57:31 +0200 (CEST) From: Jaromir Dolecek Message-Id: <200209231257.g8NCvV809546@s102-n054.tele2.cz> Subject: fifo kqfilter change in rev. 1.54? To: hackers@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 14:57:31 +0200 (CEST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL78 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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 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