From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:07:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:07:38 -0400 Received: from mnh-1-02.mv.com ([207.22.10.34]:24581 "EHLO ccure.karaya.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:07:38 -0400 Message-Id: <200208080314.WAA04821@ccure.karaya.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 To: "Udo A. Steinberg" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: context switch vs. signal delivery [was: Re: Accelerating user mode In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 08 Aug 2002 03:27:04 +0200." <20020808032704.73d7fdda.us15@os.inf.tu-dresden.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 22:14:42 -0500 From: Jeff Dike Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org us15@os.inf.tu-dresden.de said: > SIGIO would get delivered in the kernel and cleared from the shared > pending queue, which is just what we want. Not really. What we really want is for signals not to be delivered at all. That's why the ptrace signal annulling capability is nice. I'm not sure if this makes any sense, but coupling the new aio mechanism with something that queues up siginfos might be interesting. It would be a magic descriptor that would feed you signals when you read it. Is that at all sane? Jeff