[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Synchronous signal delivery..

On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> It does not have necessarily to be just another ioctl/fcntl, it can be a
> write. About security, chages might be allowed only to the task that
> created the fd, if you're concerned. It's not that someone will starve
> w/out such functionality though.

I'd actually like to reserve writes to _sending_ signals. Especially if
you have another process that listens in on the signals you get, it might
want to also force the signals through.

> > One of the reasons for the "flags" field (which is not unused) was because
> > I thought it might have extensions for things like alarms etc.
> I was thinking more like :
> int timerfd(int timeout, int oneshot);

It could be a separate system call, but since the infrastructure is
hopefully identical (most of the sigfd() code is actually creating the fs
infrastructure to get an inode with the information), it should share a
lot of the paths. Maybe even the system call.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.078 / U:1.604 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site