Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 14 Feb 2003 17:23:54 -0800 (PST) | From | Davide Libenzi <> | Subject | Re: Synchronous signal delivery.. |
| |
On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 04:00:03PM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote: > .... > > > > > One of the reasons for the "flags" field (which is not unused) was because > > > > > I thought it might have extensions for things like alarms etc. > > > > I was thinking more like : > > > > > > > > int timerfd(int timeout, int oneshot); > > > > > > It could be a separate system call, ... > > > > I would personally like it a lot to have timer events available on > > pollable fds. Am I alone in this ? > > Somehow all this idea has a feeling of long established > Linux kernel facility called: netlink > > It can send varying messages to userspace via a file-handle, and is > pollable. Originally that is for network codes, and therefore it > already has protocol capable to handle multiple different formats, > handle queue saturation, etc. > > Do we need new syscall(s) ? Could it all be done with netlink ?
The ( evntually ) new syscall do not have to implement anything special about queue and message delivery, the f_op->poll() support will be sufficent to have them working with select/poll/epoll. About netlink, I personally find it quite confusing with respect of simple syscalls like :
int sigfd(...); int timerfd(...);
Netlink is quite powerfull because of its generic message passing infrastructure, that is IMHO overkilling when you simply have to receive one timer/signal event. I personally do not like the idea of multiplexing APIs, expecially ones that did not born with that purposes.
- Davide
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |