Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] docs: counter: Document character device interface

From: William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@gmail.com>
To: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>
Cc: kamel.bouhara@bootlin.com, gwendal@chromium.org,
	mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org,
	patrick.havelange@essensium.com, alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
	syednwaris@gmail.com, linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
	jic23@kernel.org, alexandre.torgue@st.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] docs: counter: Document character device interface
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 14:58:51 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201013185851.GB32722@shinobu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d06d5e47-5776-85ee-0dc5-8b624e36d83d@lechnology.com>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2337 bytes --]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 12:04:10PM -0500, David Lechner wrote:
> On 10/8/20 7:28 AM, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 10:09:09AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >>> +        int main(void)
> >>> +        {
> >>> +                struct pollfd pfd = { .events = POLLIN };
> >>> +                struct counter_event event_data[2];
> >>> +
> >>> +                pfd.fd = open("/dev/counter0", O_RDWR);
> >>> +
> >>> +                ioctl(pfd.fd, COUNTER_SET_WATCH_IOCTL, watches);
> >>> +                ioctl(pfd.fd, COUNTER_SET_WATCH_IOCTL, watches + 1);
> >>> +                ioctl(pfd.fd, COUNTER_LOAD_WATCHES_IOCTL);
> >>> +
> >>> +                for (;;) {
> >>> +                        poll(&pfd, 1, -1);
> >>
> >> Why do poll, when you are doing blocking read?
> >>
> >>> +                        read(pfd.fd, event_data,  sizeof(event_data));
> >>
> >> Does your new chrdev always guarantee returning complete buffer?
> >>
> >> If so, should it behave like that?
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> 									Pavel
> >> -- 
> >> (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
> >> (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
> > 
> > I suppose you're right: a poll() should be redundant now with this
> > version of the character device implementation because buffers will
> > always return complete; so a blocking read() should achieve the same
> > behavior that a poll() with read() would.
> > 
> > I'll give some more time for additional feedback to come in for this
> > version of the patchset, and then likely remove support for poll() in
> > the v6 submission.
> > 
> > William Breathitt Gray
> > 
> 
> I hope that you mean that you will just remove it from the example
> and not from the chardev. Otherwise it won't be possible to
> integrate this with an event loop.

Would you elaborate a bit further on this? My thought process is that
because users must set the Counter Events they want to watch, and only
those Counter Events show up in the character device node, a blocking
read() would effectively behave the same as poll() with read(); if none
of the Counter Events occur, the read() just blocks until one does, thus
making the use of a poll() call redundant.

William Breathitt Gray

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel