Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 7 Jan 2009 21:58:16 +0100 | | From | Ingo Molnar <> | | Subject | Re: [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
|  |