On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 05:51:33PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 02/10, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > > On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 02:15:18PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > On 02/10, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > > > > > > The question is what is more useful for userspace when they do: > > > > pidfd_send_signal(1234, PIDFD_SEND_PROCESS_GROUP)? > > > > > > > > (1) They either mean to signal a process group that is headed by 1234. > > > > > > Yes, this is what I had in mind, see also another email from me. > > > Simple, clear, and matches kill(-1234). > > > > I went for a walk and kept thinking about this and I agree with you. > > It will require that 1234 will be a process group leader but I think > > that this is ok to require that. > > Yes... but I am starting to understand why you mentioned the new > open PIDFD_PROCESS_GROUP flag... perhaps we can do something like > this later, but this needs more thinking. > > > + if (type == PIDFD_SIGNAL_PROCESS_GROUP) > > + ret = kill_pgrp_info(sig, &kinfo, pid); > > I guess you meant > > if (type == PIDTYPE_PGID) > > other than that, Bahaa, yes of course. > > Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks!
