On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 4:33 PM Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 04:27:49PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 3:07 PM Tycho Andersen <tycho@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > These tools also care about ioctls. Adding a system call is a pain, > > > > but the solution is to make adding system calls less of a pain, not to > > > > permanently make the Linux ABI worse. > > > > > > For user-defined values of "worse" :) > > > > > > > I tend to agree with Tycho here. But I'm wondering if it might be > > worth considering a better ioctl. > > > > /me dons flame-proof hat > > > > We could do: > > > > long better_ioctl(int fd, u32 nr, const void *inbuf, size_t inlen, > > const void *outbuf, size_t outlen); > > I'm the writer of this patch so take this with a grain of salt. > I think it is a bad idea to stop this patch and force us to introduce a > new type of ioctl(). I agree completely. > An ioctl() is also not easy to use for this task because we want to add > a siginfo_t argument which I actually think provides value and makes > this interface more useful. > You could always have a struct procfd_kill and pass a pointer to *that*. But sure, it's ugly.
