Re: A signal fairy tale

From: Christopher Smith (
Date: Fri Jun 29 2001 - 03:26:29 EST

At 10:59 AM 6/28/2001 -0400, Dan Maas wrote:
>life-threatening things like SIGTERM, SIGKILL, and SIGSEGV. The mutation
>into queued, information-carrying siginfo signals just shows how badly we
>need a more robust event model... (what would truly kick butt is a unified
>interface that could deliver everything from fd events to AIO completions to
>semaphore/msgqueue events, etc, with explicit binding between event queues
>and threads).

I guess this is my thinking: it's really not that much of a stretch to make
signals behave like GetMessage(). Indeed, sigopen() brings them
sufficiently close. By doing this, you DO provide this unified interface
for all the different types of events you described which works much like
GetMessage(). So, but adding a couple of syscalls you avoid having to
implement a whole new set of API's for doing AIO, semaphores, msgqueues, etc.


P.S.: What do you mean by explicit binding between event queues and
threads? I'm not sure I see what this gains you.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 30 2001 - 21:00:21 EST