Quoting Christian Brauner (christian.brau...@canonical.com): > On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 01:40:59PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 09:24:00PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 7:56 PM, Aleksa Sarai <cyp...@cyphar.com> wrote: > > > > On 2018-10-31, Christian Brauner <christian.brau...@canonical.com> > > > > wrote: > > > >> > I think Aleksa's larger point is that it's useful to treat processes > > > >> > as other file-descriptor-named, poll-able, wait-able resources. > > > >> > Consistency is important. A process is just another system resource, > > > >> > and like any other system resource, you should be open to hold a file > > > >> > descriptor to it and do things to that process via that file > > > >> > descriptor. The precise form of this process-handle FD is up for > > > >> > debate. The existing /proc/$PID directory FD is a good candidate for > > > >> > a > > > >> > process handle FD, since it does almost all of what's needed. But > > > >> > regardless of what form a process handle FD takes, we need it. I > > > >> > don't > > > >> > see a case for continuing to treat processes in a non-unixy, > > > >> > non-file-descriptor-based manner. > > > >> > > > >> That's what I'm proposing in the API for which I'm gathering feedback. > > > >> I have presented parts of this in various discussions at LSS Europe > > > >> last week > > > >> and will be at LPC. > > > >> We don't want to rush an API like this though. It was tried before in > > > >> other forms > > > >> and these proposals didn't make it. > > > > > > > > :+1: on a well thought-out and generic proposal. As we've discussed > > > > elsewhere, this is an issue that really would be great to (finally) > > > > solve. > > > > > > Excited to see this and please count me in for discussions around this. > > > thanks. > > > > > > > Just a quick question, is there a track planned at LPC for discussing this > > new proposal or topics around/related to the proposal? > > > > If not, should that be planned? > > There isn't currently one planned but I'm happy to have a hallway track > session around this. > > But note, I think not all relevant people are going to be there (e.g. > Andy). File descriptors for processes seems interesting to a lot of > people so I'm going to send out a pitch of the idea I have and see how > much I'm going to get yelled at latest on Tuesday. Even if it just > triggers a design discussion. > I have been urged by people I pitched this to to send it to lkml > already. Sorry for the delay and the initial non-transparency. The only > reason I didn't do it right away was to ensure that this idea is not > completely crazy. :) (Eric probably still thinks I am though. :)) > It's just that I'm at a conference and I want to have a nicer writeup of > this. Given the speed with which this is all coming I have given up on > preparing a first set of patches. :) > > Christian
Sounds good, thanks, looking forward to it.
