On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 12:05 AM Daniel Colascione <dan...@google.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 2:26 PM Christian Brauner <christ...@brauner.io>
> wrote:
> > On December 1, 2018 11:09:58 AM GMT+13:00, Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de>
> > wrote:
> >
> > One humble point I would like to make is that what I care about most is a
> > sensible way forward without having to redo essential parts of how syscalls
> > work.
> > I don't want to introduce a sane, small syscall that ends up breaking all
> > over the place because we decided to fix past mistakes that technically
> > have nothing to do with the patch itself.
> > However, I do sympathize and understand these concerns.
>
> IMHO, it's fine to just replicate all the splits we have for the
> existing signal system calls. It's ugly, but once it's done, it'll be
> done for a long time. I can't see a need to add even more signal
> system calls after this one.
We definitely need waitid_time64() and rt_sigtimedwait_time64()
in the very near future.
Arnd
