On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Andrew Vagin <avagin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > I suppose I had wondered along similar lines, but in a slightly >> > different direction: would the use of a /proc interface to get the >> > queued signals make some sense? >> >> I think that /proc interface beats adding magic flags and magic semantic >> to [p]read. >> >> It also has the benefit of being human-readable. You don't need >> to write a special C program to "cat /proc/$$/foo". >> >> Andrey, I know that it is hard to let go of the code you invested time >> and efforts in creating. But this isn't the last patch, is it? >> You will need to retrieve yet more data for process checkpointing. >> When you start working on the next patch for it, consider trying >> /proc approach. > > I don't think that we need to convert siginfo into a human readable format > in kernel. My point is that bolting hacks onto various bits of kernel API in order to support process checkpointing makes those APIs (their in-kernel implementation) ridden with special cases and harder to support in the future. Process checkpointing needs to bite the bullet and create its own API instead. Whether it would be a /proc/PID/checkpoint or a ptrace(PTRACE_GET_CHKPOINT_DATA) is another question. -- vda -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
