Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RESEND][RFC PATCH v2] waitfd | From | Scott James Remnant <> | Date | Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:46:04 +0000 |
| |
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] | |