On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 8:42 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com wrote:
That said, I think you are being unfair to Anton who's one of the few that's actually taking the time to implement this properly instead of settling for an out-of-tree hack.
Unfair? But only I can talk about technical comment. To be honest, I really dislike I need say the same explanation again and again. A lot of people don't read past discussion. And as far as the patches take the same mistake, I must say the same thing. It is just PITA.
Unfair because you are trying to make it look as if Anton is only concerned with his specific use case. That's simply not true.
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 8:42 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com wrote:
I don't disagree vmevent notification itself, but I must disagree lie notification. And also, To make just idea statistics doesn't make sense at all. How do an application choose the right events? If that depend on hardware configuration, userland developers can't write proper applications.
That's exactly the problem we're trying to tackle here! We _want_ the ABI to provide sane, well-defined events that solve real world problems.
Pekka