Re: [RESEND][RFC PATCH v2] waitfd

Ingo Molnar
2009-01-07T20:58:45Z

* Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> 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.

hm, i think it's cleaner conceptually than trying to wrap this into
signalfd. Since we already have:

#define __NR_signalfd 321
#define __NR_timerfd_create 322
#define __NR_timerfd_settime 325
#define __NR_timerfd_gettime 326
#define __NR_signalfd4 327

is one more really such an issue?

Ingo