On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/20, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > On 03/19, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd need a get_task_struct in any case in order to safely call
> > > unlock_task_sighand(). At that point I'd prefer to just pass through the
> > > struct pid*. I'll be
On 03/20, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 03/19, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> >
> > I'd need a get_task_struct in any case in order to safely call
> > unlock_task_sighand(). At that point I'd prefer to just pass through the
> > struct pid*. I'll be posting the new version for review as soon as I
> >
On 03/19, Davide Libenzi wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > On 03/19, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > >
> > > > > +struct signalfd_ctx {
> > > > > + struct list_head lnk;
> > > > > + wait_queue_head_t wqh;
> > >
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/19, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >
> > > > +struct signalfd_ctx {
> > > > + struct list_head lnk;
> > > > + wait_queue_head_t wqh;
> > > > + sigset_t sigmask;
> > > > +
On 03/19, Davide Libenzi wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> > > +struct signalfd_ctx {
> > > + struct list_head lnk;
> > > + wait_queue_head_t wqh;
> > > + sigset_t sigmask;
> > > + struct task_struct *tsk;
> > > +};
> >
> > I think you want to use a struct pid *pid
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Davide Libenzi writes:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >
> >> Davide Libenzi writes:
> >>
> >> > struct signalfd_siginfo {
> >> > __u32 signo;/* si_signo */
> >> > __s32 err; /* si_errno */
> >> > __s32 code;
Davide Libenzi writes:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
>> Davide Libenzi writes:
>>
>> > struct signalfd_siginfo {
>> >__u32 signo;/* si_signo */
>> >__s32 err; /* si_errno */
>> >__s32 code; /* si_code */
>> >__u32 pid; /* si_pid */
>> >
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Davide Libenzi writes:
>
> > struct signalfd_siginfo {
> > __u32 signo;/* si_signo */
> > __s32 err; /* si_errno */
> > __s32 code; /* si_code */
> > __u32 pid; /* si_pid */
> > __u32 uid; /* si_uid */
>
Davide Libenzi writes:
> struct signalfd_siginfo {
> __u32 signo;/* si_signo */
> __s32 err; /* si_errno */
> __s32 code; /* si_code */
> __u32 pid; /* si_pid */
> __u32 uid; /* si_uid */
> __s32 fd; /* si_fd */
> __u32 tid;
Davide Libenzi davidel@xmailserver.org writes:
struct signalfd_siginfo {
__u32 signo;/* si_signo */
__s32 err; /* si_errno */
__s32 code; /* si_code */
__u32 pid; /* si_pid */
__u32 uid; /* si_uid */
__s32 fd; /* si_fd */
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Davide Libenzi davidel@xmailserver.org writes:
struct signalfd_siginfo {
__u32 signo;/* si_signo */
__s32 err; /* si_errno */
__s32 code; /* si_code */
__u32 pid; /* si_pid */
__u32 uid; /*
Davide Libenzi davidel@xmailserver.org writes:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Davide Libenzi davidel@xmailserver.org writes:
struct signalfd_siginfo {
__u32 signo;/* si_signo */
__s32 err; /* si_errno */
__s32 code; /* si_code */
__u32 pid;
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Davide Libenzi davidel@xmailserver.org writes:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Davide Libenzi davidel@xmailserver.org writes:
struct signalfd_siginfo {
__u32 signo;/* si_signo */
__s32 err; /* si_errno */
On 03/19, Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
+struct signalfd_ctx {
+ struct list_head lnk;
+ wait_queue_head_t wqh;
+ sigset_t sigmask;
+ struct task_struct *tsk;
+};
I think you want to use a struct pid *pid instead of a pointer to the
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 03/19, Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
+struct signalfd_ctx {
+ struct list_head lnk;
+ wait_queue_head_t wqh;
+ sigset_t sigmask;
+ struct task_struct *tsk;
On 03/19, Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 03/19, Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
+struct signalfd_ctx {
+ struct list_head lnk;
+ wait_queue_head_t wqh;
+ sigset_t sigmask;
+
On 03/20, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 03/19, Davide Libenzi wrote:
I'd need a get_task_struct in any case in order to safely call
unlock_task_sighand(). At that point I'd prefer to just pass through the
struct pid*. I'll be posting the new version for review as soon as I
complete a few
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 03/20, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 03/19, Davide Libenzi wrote:
I'd need a get_task_struct in any case in order to safely call
unlock_task_sighand(). At that point I'd prefer to just pass through the
struct pid*. I'll be posting the new
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sunday 18 March 2007, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > bah, __put_user is basically a move, so I don't think that efficency would
> > be that different (assuming that it'd matter in this case). The only thing
> > many __put_user do, is increase the
On Sunday 18 March 2007, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> bah, __put_user is basically a move, so I don't think that efficency would
> be that different (assuming that it'd matter in this case). The only thing
> many __put_user do, is increase the exception table sizes.
The cost of user access functions
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > +asmlinkage long sys_signalfd(int ufd, sigset_t __user *user_mask, size_t
> > sizemask) +{
> > + int error;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > + sigset_t sigmask;
> > + struct signalfd_ctx *ctx;
> > + struct sighand_struct *sighand;
> > +
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
+asmlinkage long sys_signalfd(int ufd, sigset_t __user *user_mask, size_t
sizemask) +{
+ int error;
+ unsigned long flags;
+ sigset_t sigmask;
+ struct signalfd_ctx *ctx;
+ struct sighand_struct *sighand;
+ struct file *file;
On Sunday 18 March 2007, Davide Libenzi wrote:
bah, __put_user is basically a move, so I don't think that efficency would
be that different (assuming that it'd matter in this case). The only thing
many __put_user do, is increase the exception table sizes.
The cost of user access functions
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Sunday 18 March 2007, Davide Libenzi wrote:
bah, __put_user is basically a move, so I don't think that efficency would
be that different (assuming that it'd matter in this case). The only thing
many __put_user do, is increase the exception
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 22:35:08 +0100 Arnd Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> sizeof(sigset_t) may be different for native and 32-bit compat code.
> It would be good if you could handle sizemask==4 && sizeof(sigset_t)==8
> in this code, so that there is no need for an extra compat_sys_signalfd
>
On Saturday 17 March 2007 22:35:08 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Also, what's the reasoning behind defining a new structure
> instead of just returning siginfo_t? Sure siginfo_t is ugly
> but it is a well-defined structure and users already deal
> with the problems it causes.
Ok, found the answer
On Friday 16 March 2007 01:22:15 Davide Libenzi wrote:
> +
> +static struct sighand_struct *signalfd_get_sighand(struct signalfd_ctx
> *ctx, + unsigned long
> *flags);
> +static void signalfd_put_sighand(struct signalfd_ctx *ctx,
> +
On Friday 16 March 2007 01:22:15 Davide Libenzi wrote:
+
+static struct sighand_struct *signalfd_get_sighand(struct signalfd_ctx
*ctx, + unsigned long
*flags);
+static void signalfd_put_sighand(struct signalfd_ctx *ctx,
+
On Saturday 17 March 2007 22:35:08 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Also, what's the reasoning behind defining a new structure
instead of just returning siginfo_t? Sure siginfo_t is ugly
but it is a well-defined structure and users already deal
with the problems it causes.
Ok, found the answer myself,
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 22:35:08 +0100 Arnd Bergmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sizeof(sigset_t) may be different for native and 32-bit compat code.
It would be good if you could handle sizemask==4 sizeof(sigset_t)==8
in this code, so that there is no need for an extra compat_sys_signalfd
This patch series implements the new signalfd() system call.
I took part of the original Linus code (and you know how
badly it can be broken :), and I added even more breakage ;)
Signals are fetched from the same signal queue used by the process,
so signalfd will compete with standard kernel
This patch series implements the new signalfd() system call.
I took part of the original Linus code (and you know how
badly it can be broken :), and I added even more breakage ;)
Signals are fetched from the same signal queue used by the process,
so signalfd will compete with standard kernel
32 matches
Mail list logo
