Re: [RFC, PATCH] netlink based mq_notify(SIGEV_THREAD)

[Manfred Spraul <manfred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

jamal wrote:

> Your split of netlink_unicast seems fine ; 
> I guess the bigger question is whether this interface could be a
> speacilized netlink protocol instead? It doesnt seem too nasty as is
> right now, just tending towards cleanliness.
> It seems that user space must first open a netlink socket for this to
> work but somehow the result skb is passed back to userspace using the
> mq_notify and not via the socket interface opened?
No, the result is returned via the socket fd. It's just created due to 
the mq_notify call.
> Why should user space
> even bother doing this? The kernel could on its behalf, no? Are you sure
> there will always be one and only one message outstanding always?
>  
There can be multiple messages outstanding. Each sucessful mq_notify 
call generates exactly one message, but a process could create multiple 
message queues and then there can be multiple messages in the 
notification socket.
--
   Manfred