lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Apr]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC, PATCH] netlink based mq_notify(SIGEV_THREAD)
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

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:02    [W:0.050 / U:0.132 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site