Re: [CRIU] [PATCH 3/3] signalfd: add ability to read siginfo-s withoutdequeuing signals (v2)

From: Pavel Emelyanov
Date: Mon Feb 11 2013 - 09:54:10 EST

On 02/11/2013 06:46 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Andrew Vagin <avagin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> I suppose I had wondered along similar lines, but in a slightly
>>>> different direction: would the use of a /proc interface to get the
>>>> queued signals make some sense?
>>> I think that /proc interface beats adding magic flags and magic semantic
>>> to [p]read.
>>> It also has the benefit of being human-readable. You don't need
>>> to write a special C program to "cat /proc/$$/foo".
>>> Andrey, I know that it is hard to let go of the code you invested time
>>> and efforts in creating. But this isn't the last patch, is it?
>>> You will need to retrieve yet more data for process checkpointing.
>>> When you start working on the next patch for it, consider trying
>>> /proc approach.
>> I don't think that we need to convert siginfo into a human readable format
>> in kernel.
> My point is that bolting hacks onto various bits of kernel API
> in order to support process checkpointing makes those APIs
> (their in-kernel implementation) ridden with special cases
> and harder to support in the future.
> Process checkpointing needs to bite the bullet and
> create its own API instead.

This is bad approach as well. What we should do is come up with a sane
API that makes sense without the checkpoint-restore project _when_ _possible_.

> Whether it would be a /proc/PID/checkpoint or a
> ptrace(PTRACE_GET_CHKPOINT_DATA) is another question.

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