From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 29 Jun 2001 07:48:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 29 Jun 2001 07:47:58 -0400 Received: from m5-mp1-cvx1b.col.ntl.com ([213.104.72.5]:3712 "EHLO [213.104.72.5]") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 29 Jun 2001 07:47:49 -0400 To: Christopher Smith Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: A signal fairy tale In-Reply-To: <3B38860D.8E07353D@kegel.com> <3B38860D.8E07353D@kegel.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20010629012013.02a29ac0@imap.xman.org> From: John Fremlin Date: 29 Jun 2001 12:47:41 +0100 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20010629012013.02a29ac0@imap.xman.org> (Christopher Smith's message of "Fri, 29 Jun 2001 01:22:30 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) XEmacs/21.1 (GTK) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Christopher Smith writes: [...] > >Signals are a pretty dopey API anyway - so instead of trying to > >patch them up, why not think of something better for AIO? > > You assume that this issue only comes up when you're doing AIO. If > we do something that makes signals work better, we can have a much > broader impact that just AIO. If nothing else, the signal usage > clashing issue has nothing to do with AIO. So what. Signals are bad system already. Therefore don't try to force them to do more stuff. Just because they have already been forced to do more doesn't mean it was a good idea at all, or that we should keep on patching bits and pieces onto them, IMHO. -- http://ape.n3.net