Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 23:51:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 23:51:03 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com ([204.127.202.62]:32204 "EHLO sccrmhc02.attbi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 23:51:02 -0500 Subject: Re: Synchronous signal delivery.. From: Keith Adamson To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Davide Libenzi , Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-10) Date: 15 Feb 2003 00:04:18 -0500 Message-Id: <1045285459.24460.97.camel@x1-6-00-d0-70-00-74-d1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1070 Lines: 21 On Fri, 2003-02-14 at 20:03, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Could we extend that to bind "other" timers to the sigfd()? Yes. And maybe > we could make it easier in general to "bind" events to the fd, instead of > having the coupling be static (ie right now it's a static coupling at > "sigfd()" call time, it could be split up into a "create descriptor" and > "bind descriptor" thing). > How about in the reverse ... being able to have multiple processes able to dynamically connect to a single existing sigfd and listen for a signal? You said that you want to reserve write() for sending signals through the sigfd. If you implement the write(sigfd, ...) then this seems to provide a very nice writer/reader signal deliver interface with well defined end points for the sender and receivers. Or maybe I'm just confused. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/