Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 14 Feb 2003 20:30:05 -0500 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: Synchronous signal delivery.. |
| |
Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Matti Aarnio wrote: > >>Do we need new syscall(s) ? Could it all be done with netlink ? > > > We'd need the same new system call - the one to associate signals of this > process with the netlink thing. > > (Yeah, the "system call" could be an ioctl entry, but quite frankly, > that's much WORSE than adding a system call. It's just system calls > without type checking).
I have been lobbying for sys_garzik(2) for years... while you're in there adding stuff, can you slip that in too please?
... :)
More seriously, and a bit of a tangent, I wonder how much attention we need to give netlink. Because it either has the potential to be used as a de facto in-kernel event-passing API, or it's too heavyweight for that, implying [IMO] we need a netlink-lite.
I _don't_ want to see mini-netlinks springing up every time we need [a]sync <foo> delivery inside the kernel.
Jeff
- 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/
| |