On Sat, 2006-08-12 at 12:10 -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > Suparna Bhattacharya wrote: > > I am wondering about that too. IIRC, the IO_NOTIFY_* constants are not > > part of the ABI, but only internal to the kernel implementation. I think > > Zach had suggested inferring THREAD_ID notification if the pid specified > > is not zero. But, I don't see why ->sigev_notify couldn't used directly > > (just like the POSIX timers code does) thus doing away with the > > new constants altogether. Sebestian/Laurent, do you recall? > > I suggest to model the implementation after the timer code which does > exactly what we need. >
Will do. > > > I'm guessing they are being used for validation of permissions at the time > > of sending the signal, but maybe saving the task pointer in the iocb instead > > of the pid would suffice ? > > Why should any verification be necessary? The requests are generated in > the same process which will receive the notification. Even if the POSIX > process (aka, kernel process group) changes the IDs the notifications > should be set. The key is that notifications cannot be sent to another > POSIX process. > > Adding this as a feature just makes things so much more complicated. > Agreed. Sébastien. -- ----------------------------------------------------- Sébastien Dugué BULL/FREC:B1-247 phone: (+33) 476 29 77 70 Bullcom: 229-7770 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux POSIX AIO: http://www.bullopensource.org/posix http://sourceforge.net/projects/paiol ----------------------------------------------------- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
