Re: [RFC] different proposal for mq_notify(SIGEV_THREAD)

From: Jamie Lokier
Date: Wed Mar 10 2004 - 16:43:38 EST

Manfred Spraul wrote:
> >The difference is that your proposal eliminates those fds.
> >But there is no reason that I can see why mq_notify() should be
> >optimised in this way and futexes not.
> >
> >
> I would start with message queues, but the mechanism must be generic
> enough to be used for futexes, etc.
> The main open question is if I should write something new or if I can
> reuse netlink.

What about extending epoll to handle non-fd event sources?
Is netlink cleaner than that? (I've never used or looked at netlink).

-- Jamie
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at