Re: Fix signalfd interaction with thread-private signals

[Nicholas Miell <nmiell@comcast.net>]

On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 17:12 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Nicholas Miell wrote:
> 
> > You could just get rid of the process/sighand/whatever reference
> > entirely and just make reads on a signalfd always dequeue signals for
> > the current thread.
> 
> Duh?! ...
> 
> > You'd lose the ability to pass signalfds around to other processes, but
> > I'm not convinced that is even useful. (But I'm sure somebody smarter
> > than me has a valid use case and would love to share :-)
> 
> 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?

Nevermind, I wasn't entirely clear on the reason why signalfd_ctx had a
tsk pointer. (I wrongly thought it was a vestige of the mechanism for
the original delivery semantics.)

-- 
Nicholas Miell <nmiell@comcast.net>

-
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/