Date: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 11:38:13 +0000 From: Niall Smart <niall@pobox.com> To: Zach Brown <zab@zabbo.net> Cc: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@americantv.com>, Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: poll() scalability Message-ID: <36E113A5.21F85DE5@pobox.com> References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9907051105200.5548-100000@hoser>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > could buffer siginfo's in user space, although this introduces > > complexity if you want the ability to cancel queued signals... > > yes, that is the hard part :) Well, how about the kernel passes siginfo and siginfo_cancel events up to userland, siginfo will remove any siginfo's from its buffer that it sees a siginfo_cancel event for -- naturally we need a flag to tell siginfo when to poll for events, this flag would be set by the function which cancels siginfo's. Would this work? Is it worth the complexity? Regards, Niall To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?36E113A5.21F85DE5>