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

[Jamie Lokier]

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  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/