Re: [RESEND][RFC PATCH v2] waitfd

Ulrich Drepper
2009-01-07T21:02:55Z

On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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.

Since waitfd shouldn't consume the child termination notification
waitfd should be more widely usable than the wait*() interfaces.
I.e., it's not necessary to restrict the use to parents. Any process
with the same UID should be allowed to call waitfd. This would allow
some new user cases.