[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703071419160.4893@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 14:21:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] signalfd v1 - signalfd core ...
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > You have the *choice* to do that:
> >
> > 1) You want standard delivery only:
> >
> > - Just dont use signalfd
> >
> > 2) you want signalfd only:
> >
> > - Do a sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK) of the same mask you pass to signalfd
> >
> > If you want both, you can have it. Race free.
> >
>
> It's only usefully race-free if you are guarantee that each signal gets
> delivered once, by one path or the other. Otherwise you get a
> non-deterministic number of each signal actually delivered - what
> earthly use is that to an application?
As I mentioned above, you do have the option to do that. With basically
the same kernel-side code. I mean, I could add a flag to signalfd and do
the blocking inside there, but that's just pushing stuff into the call.
- Davide
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists