[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0901071259210.17115@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 13:05:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Casey Dahlin <cdahlin@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [RESEND][RFC PATCH v2] waitfd
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > New syscall should have gone to linux-api, I think.
> >
> > Do we really need another one for this? How about using signalfd plus
> > setting the child's exit_signal to a queuing (SIGRTMIN+n) signal instead
> > of SIGCHLD? It's slightly more magical for the userland process to know
> > to do that (fork -> clone SIGRTMIN). But compared to adding a syscall
> > we don't really have to add, maybe better.
>
> hm, i think it's cleaner conceptually than trying to wrap this into
> signalfd. Since we already have:
>
> #define __NR_signalfd 321
> #define __NR_timerfd_create 322
> #define __NR_timerfd_settime 325
> #define __NR_timerfd_gettime 326
> #define __NR_signalfd4 327
>
> is one more really such an issue?
And what did eventfd do to you? :)
I partially agree with Roland (and I stated this during Casey's first
post), this can be achieved in a not too troublesome way already.
A new dedicated interface is easier for the challenged userspace coder,
but I dunno if it's worth the new code (although it does have little
footprint). Both ways are fine from my POV.
- 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