Re: Fix signalfd interaction with thread-private signals

Nicholas Miell
2007-06-23T01:20:59Z

On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 17:12 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Nicholas Miell wrote:
>
> > You could just get rid of the process/sighand/whatever reference
> > entirely and just make reads on a signalfd always dequeue signals for
> > the current thread.
>
> Duh?! ...
>
> > You'd lose the ability to pass signalfds around to other processes, but
> > I'm not convinced that is even useful. (But I'm sure somebody smarter
> > than me has a valid use case and would love to share :-)
>
> Wasn't it you that bitched (just a few days ago) because multiple threads
> could not use the same signalfd and they (by your initial thought) had to
> create one per thread?

Nevermind, I wasn't entirely clear on the reason why signalfd_ctx had a
tsk pointer. (I wrongly thought it was a vestige of the mechanism for
the original delivery semantics.)

--
Nicholas Miell <nmiell@comcast.net>