From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262827AbTJEJOi (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Oct 2003 05:14:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262850AbTJEJOi (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Oct 2003 05:14:38 -0400 Received: from leon.mat.uni.torun.pl ([158.75.2.17]:64471 "EHLO Leon.mat.uni.torun.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262827AbTJEJOh (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Oct 2003 05:14:37 -0400 Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 11:13:56 +0200 (CEST) From: Krzysztof Benedyczak X-X-Sender: golbi@ultra60 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org cc: Manfred Spraul , pwaechtler@mac.com, Michal Wronski Subject: POSIX message queues Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello For quite a long time there are two implementations of posix mqueues around. I think it is time to decide at least if both of them have chances of beeing applied to official kernel. So I would like to know if Peter Waechtler's implementations is considered superior or there is possible some discussion and further work on our implementation is worthwhile. There are a lot of differencies but if the most important one is use of ioctl vs syscalls it can be changed (in fact our implementation loong time ago used syscalls). In another words: is our implementation in the position of NGPT or better? ;-) Regards Krzysiek