On 03/20, Christian Brauner wrote: > > What you seem to be saying is that you want all references to > PIDFD_THREAD to be dropped in the comments because the behavior is now > identical. yes, to me the references to PIDFD_THREAD look as if PIDFD_THREAD has some subtle differences in behavior. With or without PIDFD_THREAD, do_notify_pidfd() is called and pidfd_poll() returns EPOLLIN when this thread (leader or not) is ready for wait() from the parent or debugger. But! > So I'm wiping the comments but I very much disagree that they are > misleading/useless. No, if you don't agree than do not remove the comments ;) And... can you explain the motivation for this patch? I mean... Again, the current PIDFD_THREAD/group-leader behavior is not well defined, this is clear. But if user-space does sys_pidfd_open(group_leader_pid) and needs the "correct" EPOLLIN when the whole process exits, then it should not use PIDFD_THREAD ? Just in case, I am not arguing, I am just trying to understand. Oleg.
