On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 11:39:48PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 03:46:53PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > >> Your intention is to add the thread case to support pthreads once the > > >> process case is sorted out. So this is something that needs to be made > > >> clear. Did I miss how you plan to handle threads? > > > > > > Yeah, maybe you missed it in the commit message [2] which is based on a > > > discussion with Andy [3] and Arnd [4]: > > > > Looking at your references I haven't missed it. You are not deciding > > anything as of yet to keep it simple. Except you are returning > > EOPNOTSUPP. You are very much intending to do something. > > That was clear all along and was pointed at every occassion in the > threads. I even went through the hazzle to give you all of the > references when there's lore.kernel.org. > > > > > Decide. Do you use the flags parameter or is the width of the > > target depending on the flags. Ok, let's try to be constructive. I understand the general concern for the future so let's put a contract into the commit message stating that the width of the target aka *what is signaled* will be based on a flag parameter if we ever extend it: taskfd_send_signal(fd, SIGSTOP, NULL, TASKFD_PGID); taskfd_send_signal(fd, SIGSTOP, NULL, TASKFD_TID); with the current default being taskfd_send_signal(fd, SIGSTOP, NULL, TASKFD_PID); This seems to me the cleanest solution as we only use one type of file descriptor. Can everyone be on board with this? If so I'm going to send out a new version of the patch. Christian
