From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 29 Jun 2001 04:22:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 29 Jun 2001 04:22:40 -0400 Received: from adsl-63-198-73-118.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net ([63.198.73.118]:18950 "HELO turing.xman.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 29 Jun 2001 04:22:29 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20010629012013.02a29ac0@imap.xman.org> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 01:22:30 -0700 To: John Fremlin , Dan Kegel From: Christopher Smith Subject: Re: A signal fairy tale Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <3B38860D.8E07353D@kegel.com> <3B38860D.8E07353D@kegel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org At 01:58 PM 6/28/2001 +0100, John Fremlin wrote: > Dan Kegel writes: > > A signal number cannot be opened more than once concurrently; > > sigopen() thus provides a way to avoid signal usage clashes > > in large programs. >Signals are a pretty dopey API anyway - so instead of trying to patch >them up, why not think of something better for AIO? You assume that this issue only comes up when you're doing AIO. If we do something that makes signals work better, we can have a much broader impact that just AIO. If nothing else, the signal usage clashing issue has nothing to do with AIO. --Chris