[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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean