Re: [RFC, PATCH] netlink based mq_notify(SIGEV_THREAD)

[Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>]

jamal wrote:

>Your split of netlink_unicast seems fine ; 
>I guess the bigger question is whether this interface could be a
>speacilized netlink protocol instead? It doesnt seem too nasty as is
>right now, just tending towards cleanliness.
>It seems that user space must first open a netlink socket for this to
>work but somehow the result skb is passed back to userspace using the
>mq_notify and not via the socket interface opened?
>
No, the result is returned via the socket fd. It's just created due to 
the mq_notify call.

> Why should user space
>even bother doing this? The kernel could on its behalf, no? Are you sure
>there will always be one and only one message outstanding always?
>  
>
There can be multiple messages outstanding. Each sucessful mq_notify 
call generates exactly one message, but a process could create multiple 
message queues and then there can be multiple messages in the 
notification socket.

--
    Manfred