![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> wrote: > New syscall should have gone to linux-api, I think. Yes, precisely. This requirement has been documented in SubmittingPatches for several months now. More details here: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ltp/5658 Casey, *please* don't submit a patch for a system call without also providing a test program, and some attempt at userspace documentation. (Andi already pointed this out. From my POV, I don't need you to write a full blown man page -- if you send me the text, I'll do the *roff stuff. But that text should accompany the patch that implements the syscall.) Cheers, Michael > > 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. > > > Thanks, > Roland > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Found a documentation bug? http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/reporting_bugs.html | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2009-01-08 23:07 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||