lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateWed, 7 Jan 2009 13:05:45 -0800 (PST)
FromDavide Libenzi <>
SubjectRe: [RESEND][RFC PATCH v2] waitfd
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> 
> * 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?

And what did eventfd do to you? :)
I partially agree with Roland (and I stated this during Casey's first 
post), this can be achieved in a not too troublesome way already.
A new dedicated interface is easier for the challenged userspace coder, 
but I dunno if it's worth the new code (although it does have little 
footprint). Both ways are fine from my POV.



- Davide




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-07 22:09    [from the cache]
©2003-2008