[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Fix signalfd interaction with thread-private signals

    > OK. But in that case I think we should go further, and make signalfd
    > "per process", not "per thread", see
    > Every thread gets its own local signals plus shared ones.
    > (I promise, this is the last piece of spam from me on this topic, but
    > please-please-please nack this patch explicitly if you don't like it :)

    No, I think your patch do make sense.

    That is, it -does- make sense to be able to create a signal singalfd in
    a process and have N threads reading from it and getting either shared
    signals or their local private signals.

    I just don't like the actual implementation of it by changing the task
    pointer on the fly...

    My main issue is a matter of consistency of the signalfd API as a
    whole... the whole bloody thing is instanciated & attached to a thread
    in the first place. Maybe we should change that and say that one
    instanciates a signalfd on a thread group... that is, it always gets
    attached to the leader.

    It might well be that signalfd's concept of context is wrong in the
    first place and it should be attached to processes rather than threads
    and that made more explicit in the first place... but that leaves the
    door open to what a write() API should be ...


    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: 2007-06-22 13:45    [W:0.019 / U:5.352 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site