On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 8:48 AM Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. I don't know what you mean. My gut feeling is that for the sake of consistency, process_madvise, process_vm_readv, and process_vm_writev should all accept a first argument interpreted as either a numeric PID or a pidfd depending on a flag --- ideally the same flag. Is that what you have in mind?