Re: [RESEND][RFC PATCH v2] waitfd

[Davide Libenzi]

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> 
> * Roland McGrath <roland@xxxxxxxxxx> 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?

And what did eventfd do to you? :)
I partially agree with Roland (and I stated this during Casey's first 
post), this can be achieved in a not too troublesome way already.
A new dedicated interface is easier for the challenged userspace coder, 
but I dunno if it's worth the new code (although it does have little 
footprint). Both ways are fine from my POV.



- Davide


--
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/