lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateWed, 7 Jan 2009 21:58:16 +0100
FromIngo Molnar <>
SubjectRe: [RESEND][RFC PATCH v2] waitfd
* Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> 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.

hm, i think it's cleaner conceptually than trying to wrap this into 
signalfd. Since we already have:

  #define __NR_signalfd           321
  #define __NR_timerfd_create     322
  #define __NR_timerfd_settime    325
  #define __NR_timerfd_gettime    326
  #define __NR_signalfd4          327

is one more really such an issue?

	Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-07 22:01    [from the cache]
©2003-2008