From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262841AbUCJVAc (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Mar 2004 16:00:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262833AbUCJVAZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Mar 2004 16:00:25 -0500 Received: from dbl.q-ag.de ([213.172.117.3]:12743 "EHLO dbl.q-ag.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262820AbUCJU55 (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:57:57 -0500 Message-ID: <404F814C.1070202@colorfullife.com> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 21:57:48 +0100 From: Manfred Spraul User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; fr-FR; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031114 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jamie Lokier CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] different proposal for mq_notify(SIGEV_THREAD) References: <404B2C46.90709@colorfullife.com> <20040310203857.GA7341@mail.shareable.org> In-Reply-To: <20040310203857.GA7341@mail.shareable.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jamie Lokier wrote: >The difference is that your proposal eliminates those fds. >But there is no reason that I can see why mq_notify() should be >optimised in this way and futexes not. > > I would start with message queues, but the mechanism must be generic enough to be used for futexes, etc. The main open question is if I should write something new or if I can reuse netlink. -- Manfred