lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Synchronous signal delivery..
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Matti Aarnio wrote:
>
>>Do we need new syscall(s) ? Could it all be done with netlink ?
>
>
> We'd need the same new system call - the one to associate signals of this
> process with the netlink thing.
>
> (Yeah, the "system call" could be an ioctl entry, but quite frankly,
> that's much WORSE than adding a system call. It's just system calls
> without type checking).


I have been lobbying for sys_garzik(2) for years... while you're in
there adding stuff, can you slip that in too please?

... :)

More seriously, and a bit of a tangent, I wonder how much attention we
need to give netlink. Because it either has the potential to be used as
a de facto in-kernel event-passing API, or it's too heavyweight for
that, implying [IMO] we need a netlink-lite.

I _don't_ want to see mini-netlinks springing up every time we need
[a]sync <foo> delivery inside the kernel.

Jeff



-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans