On 20.04.19 01:29, Daniel Colascione wrote: > The point I'm making, to be> very clear, is *NOT* that process monitoring is "not worth> considering", but that process monitoring is subtle and complicated> enough that it ought to be considered as a standalone project,> independent of pidfds proper and of the very simple and effective> pidfd system that Joel has proposed in his patch series. At that point I'm wondering: what pidfd is actually meant for, if not process monitoring ? --mtx -- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult Free software and Linux embedded engineering info@xxxxxxxxx -- +49-151-27565287
