On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:01 AM Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 08:57:47AM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Yes. For the sake of consistency they should probably all default to
> interpret as pid and if say PROCESS_{VM_}PIDFD is passed as flag
> interpret as pidfd.
Sounds good to me!
