Re: [RESEND][RFC PATCH v2] waitfd

Michael Kerrisk
2009-01-08T22:04:59Z

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> wrote:
> New syscall should have gone to linux-api, I think.

Yes, precisely. This requirement has been documented in
SubmittingPatches for several months now. More details here:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ltp/5658

Casey, *please* don't submit a patch for a system call without also
providing a test program, and some attempt at userspace documentation.
(Andi already pointed this out. From my POV, I don't need you to
write a full blown man page -- if you send me the text, I'll do the
*roff stuff. But that text should accompany the patch that implements
the syscall.)

Cheers,

Michael

>
> Do we really need another one for this? How about using signalfd plus
> setting the child's exit_signal to a queuing (SIGRTMIN+n) signal instead of
> SIGCHLD? It's slightly more magical for the userland process to know to do
> that (fork -> clone SIGRTMIN). But compared to adding a syscall we don't
> really have to add, maybe better.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Roland
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

--
Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer;
http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Found a documentation bug?