[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Rationale for paccept() sigset argument?
Ulrich -- ping!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Kerrisk <>
Date: Sep 2, 2008 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: Rationale for paccept() sigset argument?
To: Ulrich Drepper <>
Cc: Michael Kerrisk <>, Ulrich Drepper
<>, Davide Libenzi <>, lkml
<>, Andrew Morton
<>, Jakub Jelinek <>, Linus
Torvalds <>

Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Michael Kerrisk
> <> wrote:
> > What is the rationale for the sigset argument of paccept()?
> >
> accept, like select/poll, is used often as a function to dealy
> operation. Unlike read, recv, etc, which are handled using O_NONBLOCK
> and select/poll. pselect/ppoll do not really have a sigset parameter
> to handle signals in general. You use it to enable special handling
> in case of blocking. Example: if you want to implement userlevel
> context switching, you dedicate a signal to wake up any blocked
> thread. Since accept falls more into the same category than poll,
> this means the sigset parameter is justified. In theory we could add
> it to all functions but there is no reason to do this without any
> other reason to change the interface.

Ulrich, you snipped a relevant piece of my earlier message:

> * It seems to me that any case where we might want to use paccept() could be
> equivalently dealt with using the existing pselect()/ppoll()/epoll_pwait()
> followed by a conventional accept() if the listening file descriptor
> indicates as ready.

So I'll rephrase: what use case does the sigset argument of paccept()
allow us to handle that couldn't equally have been handled by
pselect()/ppoll()/epoll_pwait() + traditional accept()?



 \ /
  Last update: 2008-09-08 15:37    [W:0.044 / U:0.780 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site