lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [RESEND][RFC PATCH v2] waitfd
    From
    Date
    On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 19:21 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

    > On 01/10, Scott James Remnant wrote:
    > >
    > > On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 17:19 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
    > >
    > > > I am not sure we are talking about the same thing, but afaics poll() +
    > > > signalfd can work to (say) reap the childs. Actually, ppoll() alone is
    > > > enough.
    > > >
    > > Last time I checked, ppoll() was not actually implemented across all
    > > architectures in a manner that solved the race it was intended to solve.
    > >
    >
    > As I said, this is imho unfair. But I mentioned ppol() "just in case".
    >
    > My questiong was why do you think that "signalfd() can't currently be
    > made to work in the way you describe". You have dropped this part to
    > change the topic?
    >
    Sorry, I may not be following LKML etiquette correctly. These couple of
    recent threads (other than some bugs I found in wait last year) are my
    first real attempt to participate here.

    I wasn't intending to "change the topic" or dropping the parts about
    changing signalfd() to somehow sweet it under the carpet.

    Rather than posting repeatedly across the thread, I tried to consolidate
    my responses into the other post you've replied to.


    You made an interesting point about ppoll here, so I only responded to
    that to find out whether the situation of that syscall had been
    improved.

    Not so much changing the topic, but asking a side-bar question ;)

    Scott
    --
    Scott James Remnant
    scott@canonical.com
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-01-10 19:49    [W:5.500 / U:0.088 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site