Re: [RESEND][RFC PATCH v2] waitfd

[Scott James Remnant]

On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 12:53 -0800, Roland McGrath 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.
> 
Doesn't that also change the wait() options you need as well?

Scott
-- 
Scott James Remnant
scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part