Re: [RESEND][RFC PATCH v2] waitfd

Scott James Remnant
2009-01-10T14:09:29Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 588 bytes --]

On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 12:53 -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:

> New syscall should have gone to linux-api, I think.
>
> 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.
>
Doesn't that also change the wait() options you need as well?

Scott
--
Scott James Remnant
scott@canonical.com

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