Re: Synchronous signal delivery..

From: Jeff Garzik (
Date: Fri Feb 14 2003 - 20:30:05 EST

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Matti Aarnio wrote:
>>Do we need new syscall(s) ? Could it all be done with netlink ?
> We'd need the same new system call - the one to associate signals of this
> process with the netlink thing.
> (Yeah, the "system call" could be an ioctl entry, but quite frankly,
> that's much WORSE than adding a system call. It's just system calls
> without type checking).

I have been lobbying for sys_garzik(2) for years... while you're in
there adding stuff, can you slip that in too please?

... :)

More seriously, and a bit of a tangent, I wonder how much attention we
need to give netlink. Because it either has the potential to be used as
a de facto in-kernel event-passing API, or it's too heavyweight for
that, implying [IMO] we need a netlink-lite.

I _don't_ want to see mini-netlinks springing up every time we need
[a]sync <foo> delivery inside the kernel.


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 15 2003 - 22:01:00 EST