[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703080742220.7015@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 07:45:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: "David M. Lloyd" <dmlloyd@...rg.com>
cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/5] signalfd v2 - signalfd core ...
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, David M. Lloyd wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 17:21 -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > int signalfd_dequeue(int fd, siginfo_t *info, long timeo);
> >
> > The "fd" parameter must ba a signalfd file descriptor. The "info" parameter
> > is a pointer to the siginfo that will receive the dequeued signal, and
> > "timeo" is a timeout in milliseconds, or -1 for infinite.
> > The signalfd_dequeue function returns 0 if successfull.
>
> Does this support non-blocking mode? It doesn't seem to at my level of
> understanding anyway. If I use this with EPOLLET for example, I'd
> expect to get a single EPOLLIN when a signal arrives, which would
> indicate to me that I must call signalfd_dequeue() in a loop until I get
> EAGAIN in order to be sure I've consumed all the outstanding signals so
> that the edge-triggered notification can be "re-armed".
This patch, if you get a POLLIN, you have a signal to read for sure (well,
unless you another thread/task reads it before you - but that's just
somthing you have to take care). There is not explicit check for
O_NONBLOCK now, but a zero timeout would do exactly the same thing.
- 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