On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:52 AM Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm not going to go into yet another long argument. I prefer pidfd_*.
Ok. We're each allowed our opinion.
> It's tied to the api, transparent for userspace, and disambiguates it
> from process_vm_{read,write}v that both take a pid_t.
Speaking of process_vm_readv and process_vm_writev: both have a
currently-unused flags argument. Both should grow a flag that tells
them to interpret the pid argument as a pidfd. Or do you support
adding pidfd_vm_readv and pidfd_vm_writev system calls? If not, why
should process_madvise be called pidfd_madvise while process_vm_readv
isn't called pidfd_vm_readv?
