On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 01:02:00PM -0800, Ulrich Drepper ([email protected]) wrote:
> Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> >But in this case it will be impossible to have SIGEV_THREAD and
> >SIGEV_KEVENT
> >at the same time, it will be just the same as SIGEV_SIGNAL but with
> >different delivery mechanism. Is is what you expect for that?
>
> Yes, that's expected. The event if for the queue, not directed to a
> specific thread.
>
> If in future we want to think about preferably waking a specific thread
> we can then think about it. But I doubt that'll be beneficial. The
> thread specific part in the signal handling is only used to implement
> the SIGEV_THREAD notification.
Ok, so please review patch I sent, if it is ok from design point of
view, I will run some tests here.
> --
> ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View,
> CA ❖
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
-
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]
