[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    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.


    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:0.032 / U:62.904 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site