On 06/22, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> That is, it -does- make sense to be able to create a signal singalfd in
> a process and have N threads reading from it and getting either shared
> signals or their local private signals.
Great.
> I just don't like the actual implementation of it by changing the task
> pointer on the fly...
>
> My main issue is a matter of consistency of the signalfd API as a
> whole... the whole bloody thing is instanciated & attached to a thread
> in the first place. Maybe we should change that and say that one
> instanciates a signalfd on a thread group... that is, it always gets
> attached to the leader.
It does exactly so, please note this chunk
@@ -330,7 +339,7 @@ asmlinkage long sys_signalfd(int ufd, si
init_waitqueue_head(&ctx->wqh);
ctx->sigmask = sigmask;
- ctx->tsk = current;
+ ctx->tsk = current->group_leader;
> It might well be that signalfd's concept of context is wrong in the
> first place and it should be attached to processes rather than threads
> and that made more explicit in the first place...
Exactly!
Oleg.
-
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]
