From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mohit89mlnc@gmail.com (mohit verma) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:46:54 +0530 Subject: Common signal handler system call In-Reply-To: <1300703905.1454.41.camel@thorin> References: <1300534267.23326.10.camel@thorin> <1300571006.23326.18.camel@thorin> <1300703905.1454.41.camel@thorin> Message-ID: To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Bernd Petrovitsch < bernd@petrovitsch.priv.at> wrote: > On Son, 2011-03-20 at 13:08 +0530, mohit verma wrote: [...] > > I think it should be there in kernel not because it is my idea but for > > good reasons (personally think so). > > ... and despite IMHO good reason for not including. > But talk is cheap so prepare and propose a working prototype as patch > and we will see the reaction from others. > > thanks a lot Bernd. I am gonna do it. I'm not strong against it but I do not see any significant advantage but > at least one open question and the burden to all which do not need/use > it[0]. > > ad "POSIX compliance": Well, there are lots of system calls (in the > Linux kernel) which are not in POSIX (or SuSv3 or ...) - plain simply > because they are newer than these "standards" or out of the scope of > them. > And (on Linux with and/or without GNU-libc) some system-calls (or > whatever POSIX calls them) are "only" libc functions which are > transformed into other, real existing system-calls. > > Bernd > > [0]: And that is partly due to my embedded background where you strive > to make everything small and avoid bloat;-) > -- > Bernd Petrovitsch Email : bernd at petrovitsch.priv.at > LUGA : http://www.luga.at > > -- ........................ *MOHIT VERMA* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20110321/11bd9a26/attachment.html