On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 08:17:23AM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> 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?
Actually, you should then do the same with process_madvise() and give it
a flag for that too if that's not too crazy.
Christian
