Messages in this thread |  | | | Subject | Re: [RESEND][RFC PATCH v2] waitfd | | From | Scott James Remnant <> | | Date | Sat, 10 Jan 2009 14:09:25 +0000 | |
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 12:53 -0800, Roland McGrath 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.
>
Doesn't that also change the wait() options you need as well?
Scott
--
Scott James Remnant
scott@canonical.com
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] |  |