From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roland McGrath Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] add rt_tgsigqueueinfo syscall [RESEND] Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:58:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20090324065858.153BAFC3AB@magilla.sf.frob.com> References: <20090226133339.875832967@linutronix.de> <20090227000352.7D32BFC339@magilla.sf.frob.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Thomas Gleixner's message of Monday, 23 March 2009 12:14:59 +0100 Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, LKML , Oleg Nesterov , Ingo Molnar , Sukadev Bhattiprolu , Linux API List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org > > I don't see any rationale for rt_tgsigqueueinfo and rt_sigqueueinfo to > > differ in their treatment of si_pid/si_uid (whatever that is). It just > > seems like common sense that they would match. > > > > Oleg and/or Sukadev have some patches floating around (maybe all in -mm?) > > that relate to setting those. > > You mean having the same logic as we have in {t,tg,}kill syscalls for > rt_sigqueueinfo as well ? I mean just what I said: rt_tgsigqueueinfo's treatment of the siginfo_t should match rt_sigqueueinfo's. Make it match rt_sigqueueinfo today and make sure that if rt_sigqueueinfo changes, then rt_tgsigqueueinfo will change to match. > Is there anything else which stands in the way of getting the > rt_tgsigqueueinfo interface merged ? I don't see any problem. But you should at least make sure that Ulrich likes the syscall interface for implementing pthread_sigqueue or whatever it will be. Thanks, Roland -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html