[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RESEND][RFC PATCH v2] waitfd
    On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Roland McGrath <> wrote:
    > New syscall should have gone to linux-api, I think.

    Yes, precisely. This requirement has been documented in
    SubmittingPatches for several months now. More details here:

    Casey, *please* don't submit a patch for a system call without also
    providing a test program, and some attempt at userspace documentation.
    (Andi already pointed this out. From my POV, I don't need you to
    write a full blown man page -- if you send me the text, I'll do the
    *roff stuff. But that text should accompany the patch that implements
    the syscall.)



    > Do we really need another one for this? How about using signalfd plus
    > setting the child's exit_signal to a queuing (SIGRTMIN+n) signal instead of
    > SIGCHLD? It's slightly more magical for the userland process to know to do
    > that (fork -> clone SIGRTMIN). But compared to adding a syscall we don't
    > really have to add, maybe better.
    > Thanks,
    > Roland
    > --
    > 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

    Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; Found a documentation bug?

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-01-08 23:07    [W:0.044 / U:2.984 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site