Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 7 Jan 2009 13:05:45 -0800 (PST) | | From | Davide Libenzi <> | | Subject | Re: [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
|  |