[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RESEND][RFC PATCH v2] waitfd
    On 01/10, Casey Dahlin wrote:
    > Scott James Remnant wrote:
    >> On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 18:19 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
    >>> Please note that unlike other sys_...fd() syscalls, sys_waitfd()
    >>> doesn't allow to pass O_CLOEXEC. Looks like we need a separate
    >>> "flags" argument...
    >>> Also, ioctl(FIONBIO) or fcntl(O_NONBLOCK) have no effect on
    >>> waitfd, not very good.
    >>> I'd suggest to remove WNOHANG from waitfd_ctx->ops and treat
    >>> (->f_flags & O_NONBLOCK) as WNOHANG.
    >>> (can't resist, ->ops is not the best name ;)
    >> Definitely agree here, waitfd() doesn't need WNOHANG - we already have
    >> That also solves one of the strangest behaves of waitid when you use
    >> WNOHANG (it returns zero and you have to check whether it changed the
    >> struct), now you just read() - if no child you get EAGAIN, if a child
    >> you read a struct.
    > From the perspective of waitfd, the only difference between WNOHANG and
    > O_NONBLOCK is which argument you put the flags in.

    No. Please see the note about ioctl/fcntl above.


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-01-10 23:37    [W:0.075 / U:2.296 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site