Re: [RESEND][RFC PATCH v2] waitfd

[Ingo Molnar]

* 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?

	Ingo
--
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/