Re: [PATCH] Futex Asynchronous Interface

["Peter Wächtler" <pwaechtler@loewe-komp.de>]

Rusty Russell wrote:
> In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0206060930240.5920-100000@home.transmeta.com> you wri
> te:
> 
>>Do we have major and minor numbers for sockets and populate /dev
>>with them? No. And as a result, there has _never_ been any sysadmin
>>problems with either.
>>
> 
> Ummm... you don't do much network programming, do you Linus?  Don't
> confuse familiarity with fondness: the socket API is *not* a good
> model to copy.
> 
> 
>>You already have to have a system call to bind the particular fd to the
>>futex _anyway_, so do the only sane thing, and allocate the fd _there_,
>>and get rid of that stupid and horrible /dev/futed which only buys you
>>pain, system administration, extra code, and a black star for being
>>stupid.
>>
> 
> Yet another special way to create a special fd?  Hmm...
> 
> That might be better than what I proposed, but it's not the epitomy of
> taste either.
> 

What about /proc/futex then? Less adminstrative work, clean interface
(also for shell scripts like Alan suggested).
Al Viro would like this, it's more like Plan9 or QNX6. :)

Give it an entry in the namespace, why not with sockets (unix and ip) also?