1. 17 4月, 2005 2 次提交
    • B
      [PATCH] AYSNC IO using singals other than SIGIO · fc9c9ab2
      Bharath Ramesh 提交于
      A question on sigwaitinfo based IO mechanism in multithreaded applications.
      
      I am trying to use RT signals to notify me of IO events using RT signals
      instead of SIGIO in a multithreaded applications.  I noticed that there was
      some discussion on lkml during november 1999 with the subject of the
      discussion as "Signal driven IO".  In the thread I noticed that RT signals
      were being delivered to the worker thread.  I am running 2.6.10 kernel and
      I am trying to use the very same mechanism and I find that only SIGIO being
      propogated to the worker threads and RT signals only being propogated to
      the main thread and not the worker threads where I actually want them to be
      propogated too.  On further inspection I found that the following patch
      which I have attached solves the problem.
      
      I am not sure if this is a bug or feature in the kernel.
      
      
      Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> said:
      
      This relates only to fcntl F_SETSIG, which is a Linux extension.  So there is
      no POSIX issue.  When changing various things like the normal SIGIO signalling
      to do group signals, I was concerned strictly with the POSIX semantics and
      generally avoided touching things in the domain of Linux inventions.  That's
      why I didn't change this when I changed the call right next to it.  There is
      no reason I can see that F_SETSIG-requested signals shouldn't use a group
      signal like normal SIGIO does.  I'm happy to ACK this patch, there is nothing
      wrong with its change to the semantics in my book.  But neither POSIX nor I
      care a whit what F_SETSIG does.
      Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
      Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
      fc9c9ab2
    • L
      Linux-2.6.12-rc2 · 1da177e4
      Linus Torvalds 提交于
      Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history,
      even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git
      archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about
      3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early
      git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good
      infrastructure for it.
      
      Let it rip!
      1da177e4