Re: Fix signalfd interaction with thread-private signals

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 

On Sat, 2007-06-23 at 16:05 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 17:12 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > Wasn't it you that bitched (just a few days ago) because multiple
> > threads 
> > could not use the same signalfd and they (by your initial thought) had
> > to 
> > create one per thread?
> 
> He said multiple process and you say multiple threads...
> 
> If signalfd isn't attached to any context, it would then be useable by
> all threads in a process, delivering them their private signals and the
> process shared signals. Makes sense to me.
> 
> By removing that context thing, you lose the ability to listen to some
> other -process- signals, which is probably a bad idea in the first place
> anyway... if you're going to do that, use ptrace (yuck) :-)
> 
> Now, you -might- have valid uses for that later ability, but if not, it
> then makes some sense to only "attach" when an actual read or poll is
> done and only for the duration of that read/poll and only for that
> reader/poller (not the whole signalfd instance).
> 
> I think that's what Nicholas means... and it may even simplify the code.
>  

That is what I was suggesting, but I don't understand the internals of
Linux signal delivery enough to know if it is possible without
unpleasant contortions to make it work.

-- 
Nicholas Miell <[email protected]>

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux