Re: Rationale for paccept() sigset argument?

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Michael Kerrisk
Date: Monday, September 8, 2008 - 6:33 am

Ulrich -- ping!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@googlemail.com>
Date: Sep 2, 2008 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: Rationale for paccept() sigset argument?
To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@googlemail.com>, Ulrich Drepper
<drepper@redhat.com>, Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>, lkml
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton
<akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>, Linus
Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>


Ulrich Drepper wrote:


Ulrich, you snipped a relevant piece of my earlier message:

[[
]]

So I'll rephrase: what use case does the sigset argument of paccept()
allow us to handle that couldn't equally have been handled by
pselect()/ppoll()/epoll_pwait() + traditional accept()?


Cheers,

Michael
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Rationale for paccept() sigset argument?, Michael Kerrisk, (Wed Aug 20, 9:50 am)
Re: Rationale for paccept() sigset argument?, Michael Kerrisk, (Fri Aug 29, 1:45 pm)
Re: Rationale for paccept() sigset argument?, Ulrich Drepper, (Mon Sep 1, 5:48 pm)
Re: Rationale for paccept() sigset argument?, Michael Kerrisk, (Tue Sep 2, 12:58 am)
Re: Rationale for paccept() sigset argument?, Michael Kerrisk, (Mon Sep 8, 6:33 am)
Re: Rationale for paccept() sigset argument?, Michael Kerrisk, (Wed Sep 10, 10:48 pm)