[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090324065858.153BAFC3AB@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: mtk.manpages@...il.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] add rt_tgsigqueueinfo syscall [RESEND]
> > I don't see any rationale for rt_tgsigqueueinfo and rt_sigqueueinfo to
> > differ in their treatment of si_pid/si_uid (whatever that is). It just
> > seems like common sense that they would match.
> >
> > Oleg and/or Sukadev have some patches floating around (maybe all in -mm?)
> > that relate to setting those.
>
> You mean having the same logic as we have in {t,tg,}kill syscalls for
> rt_sigqueueinfo as well ?
I mean just what I said: rt_tgsigqueueinfo's treatment of the siginfo_t
should match rt_sigqueueinfo's. Make it match rt_sigqueueinfo today and
make sure that if rt_sigqueueinfo changes, then rt_tgsigqueueinfo will
change to match.
> Is there anything else which stands in the way of getting the
> rt_tgsigqueueinfo interface merged ?
I don't see any problem. But you should at least make sure that Ulrich
likes the syscall interface for implementing pthread_sigqueue or whatever
it will be.
Thanks,
Roland
--
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