On 2019-05-16, Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:45:06AM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote: > > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:04 AM Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > + if (pid <= 0) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > WDYT of defining pid == 0 to mean "open myself"? > > I'm torn. It be a nice shortcut of course but pid being 0 is usually an > indicator for child processes. So unless the getpid() before > pidfd_open() is an issue I'd say let's leave it as is. If you really > want the shortcut might -1 be better? I'd suggest not using negative numbers, and instead reserving them for PIDTYPE_TGID if we ever want to have that in the future. IMHO, doing pfd = pidfd_open(getpid(), 0); is not the end of the world. -- Aleksa Sarai Senior Software Engineer (Containers) SUSE Linux GmbH <https://www.cyphar.com/>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
