Messages in this thread | | | From | Hubertus Franke <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Futex Generalization Patch | Date | Wed, 10 Apr 2002 14:10:59 -0400 |
| |
On Wednesday 10 April 2002 02:09 pm, Bill Abt wrote: > On 04/10/2002 at 12:37:53 PM AST, Hubertus Franke <frankeh@watson.ibm.com> > > wrote: > > Can somebody in the thread world weight in what there preferred mechanism > > is > > > regarding limits etc. Do you need to control the issue on how the signal > > is > > > delivered? Is a file descriptor good enough or you want a sys_call > > interface ? > > > I went thru the POSIX specification and couldn't find any specified limits > regarding this and in most cases these limits are enforced at the library > level. It probably should be left up to the kernel folks to determine the > kernel limits they can live with. The library can adapt to this value. I > don't believe a pthread library would need any "extra" control of how the > signal is delivered. A file descriptor is good enough, seems a waste to > have to provide a sys_call interface. >
So you are OK with having only poll or select. That seems odd. It seems you still need SIGIO on your fd to get the async notification.
> Regards, > Bill Abt > Senior Software Engineer > Next Generation POSIX Threading for Linux > IBM Cambridge, MA, USA 02142 > Ext: +(00)1 617-693-1591 > T/L: 693-1591 (M/W/F) > T/L: 253-9938 (T/Th/Eves.) > Cell: +(00)1 617-803-7514 > babt@us.ibm.com or abt@us.ibm.com > http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/pthreads
-- Hubertus
-- -- Hubertus Franke (frankeh@watson.ibm.com) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |