On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 04:43:05PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 02/09, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > > How do you feel about the following (untested...) addition? > > LGTM, but let me read this patch once again tomorrow, I have > a headache today. Bah, feel better! > > > I've played with PIDFD_SIGNAL_PROCESS_GROUP as well but that code is > > fairly new to me so I would need some more time. > > Heh, I was going to send another email to discuss this ;) > > Should be simple, but may be need some simple preparations. > > Especially if we also want PIDFD_SIGNAL_SESSION_GROUP. > > So the question: do you think we also want PIDFD_SIGNAL_SESSION_GROUP? Thought about this as well and my feeling is to wait until someone asks for it. Right now, we have a reason to add PIDFD_SIGNAL_PROCESS_GROUP because of Andy's use-case. If someone has a use-case for session groups then yes. Otherwise I'd just not bother?
