Re: [RESEND][RFC PATCH v2] waitfd

[Scott James Remnant <scott@canonical.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1481 bytes --]

On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 19:21 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> On 01/10, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 17:19 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > I am not sure we are talking about the same thing, but afaics poll() +
> > > signalfd can work to (say) reap the childs. Actually, ppoll() alone is
> > > enough.
> > >
> > Last time I checked, ppoll() was not actually implemented across all
> > architectures in a manner that solved the race it was intended to solve.
> >
> 
> As I said, this is imho unfair. But I mentioned ppol() "just in case".
> 
> My questiong was why do you think that "signalfd() can't currently be
> made to work in the way you describe". You have dropped this part to
> change the topic?
> 
Sorry, I may not be following LKML etiquette correctly.  These couple of
recent threads (other than some bugs I found in wait last year) are my
first real attempt to participate here.

I wasn't intending to "change the topic" or dropping the parts about
changing signalfd() to somehow sweet it under the carpet.

Rather than posting repeatedly across the thread, I tried to consolidate
my responses into the other post you've replied to.


You made an interesting point about ppoll here, so I only responded to
that to find out whether the situation of that syscall had been
improved.

Not so much changing the topic, but asking a side-bar question ;)

Scott
-- 
Scott James Remnant
scott@canonical.com

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]