From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
"Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>,
Albert ARIBAUD <albert.aribaud@3adev.fr>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: extending wait4(2) or waitid(2) linux syscall
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 10:41:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87efb5h74j.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <67B157B9-80B0-4862-87F4-F03DECBD58CC@brauner.io> (Christian Brauner's message of "Wed, 28 Nov 2018 22:36:49 +1300")
* Christian Brauner:
> The intention has always been to start a
> file descriptor process API off of that.
> If we land my procfd_signal() patchset we are in good shape for
> procfd_wait(), imho.
How does this interact with SIGCHLD and the wait system call (or any
wait function without an explicitly specified PID)?
I understand that I have somewhat conflicting requirements, but in terms
of relative priorities, launching a process without spurious signals and
wait notifications would probably offer the larger benefit.
Thanks,
Florian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-28 9:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20170420152051.568f2050.albert.aribaud@3adev.fr>
[not found] ` <20181115140441.GA2171@altlinux.org>
[not found] ` <CAK8P3a0Gsqa8WTbALOUchRyEA7E2f3P1f=XQ8nD2xQaemfPpcQ@mail.gmail.com>
2018-11-15 15:30 ` extending wait4(2) or waitid(2) linux syscall Dmitry V. Levin
2018-11-15 15:37 ` hpa
2018-11-16 7:14 ` Arnd Bergmann
2018-11-16 10:26 ` Florian Weimer
2018-11-16 15:17 ` Arnd Bergmann
2018-11-16 16:03 ` Paul Eggert
2018-11-16 18:46 ` hpa
2018-11-16 18:48 ` hpa
2018-11-16 7:12 ` Arnd Bergmann
2018-11-16 12:42 ` Dave Martin
2018-11-16 13:40 ` Florian Weimer
2018-11-16 14:26 ` Dave Martin
2018-11-17 1:50 ` Arnd Bergmann
2018-11-26 15:18 ` Florian Weimer
2018-11-26 17:15 ` Arnd Bergmann
2018-11-26 17:27 ` Daniel Colascione
2018-11-28 9:31 ` Florian Weimer
2018-11-28 9:36 ` Christian Brauner
2018-11-28 9:41 ` Florian Weimer [this message]
2018-11-28 18:50 ` Daniel Colascione
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87efb5h74j.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com \
--to=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=albert.aribaud@3adev.fr \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=christian@brauner.io \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=ldv@altlinux.org \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).