On 01/27, Tycho Andersen wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 08:31:27PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > On the second thought I am starting to understand your concern... > > > > Indeed, in this case -EBADF is technically correct but it can confuse > > the user which doesn't or can't know that this task/thread is exiting, > > because EBADF looks as if the "int fd" argument was wrong. > > > > Sorry I missed your point before. > > No worries. I realized it's not so hard to fix with your new > xxx_exited() helper from the PIDFD_THREAD patch, so maybe worth > cleaning up after all? OK, lets discuss this later. I'll (hopefully) send v2 on top of pidfd: cleanup the usage of __pidfd_prepare's flags pidfd: don't do_notify_pidfd() if !thread_group_empty() on Monday, will be busy tomorrow (family duties ;) Oleg.
