Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 21:58:16 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Cc: Casey Dahlin <cdahlin@redhat.com>,
       Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
       Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>,
       Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [RESEND][RFC PATCH v2] waitfd
Message-ID: <20090107205816.GC4597@elte.hu>
References: <49639EB8.40204@redhat.com> <4963ABF0.6070400@redhat.com> <20090107123457.GB16268@elte.hu> <20090107205322.5F8C7FC3E0@magilla.sf.frob.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090107205322.5F8C7FC3E0@magilla.sf.frob.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1029
Lines: 28


* Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> wrote:

> New syscall should have gone to linux-api, I think.
> 
> 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.

hm, i think it's cleaner conceptually than trying to wrap this into 
signalfd. Since we already have:

  #define __NR_signalfd           321
  #define __NR_timerfd_create     322
  #define __NR_timerfd_settime    325
  #define __NR_timerfd_gettime    326
  #define __NR_signalfd4          327

is one more really such an issue?

	Ingo
--
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/