On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Nicholas Miell wrote: > On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 17:11 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Nicholas Miell wrote: > > > > > Yes, that's certainly wrong, but that's an implementation issue. I was > > > more concerned about the design of the API. > > > > > > Naively, I would expect a reads on a signalfd to return either process > > > signals or thread signals targeted towards the thread doing the read. > > > > > > What it actually does (delivering process signals or thread signals > > > targeted towards the thread that created the signalfd) is weird. > > > > > > For one, it means you can't create a single signalfd, stick it in an > > > epoll set, and then wait on that set from multiple threads. > > > > In your box threads do share the sighand, don't they? :) > > > > I have no idea what you're trying to say, but it doesn't appear to > address the issue I raise.
"For one, it means you can't create a single signalfd, stick it in an epoll set, and then wait on that set from multiple threads." Why not? A signalfd, like I said, is attached to the sighand, that is shared by the threads. - Davide - 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/
