On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 10:07:17PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 09:01:33AM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:01 AM Christian Brauner <christ...@brauner.io>
> > 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
> > > > <christ...@brauner.io> 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
> > > > > > <christ...@brauner.io> 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!
>
> Then, I want to change from pidfd to pid at next revsion and stick to
> process_madvise as naming. Later, you guys could define PROCESS_PIDFD
> flag and change all at once every process_xxx syscall friends.
>
> If you are faster so that I see PROCESS_PIDFD earlier, I am happy to
> use it.
Hi Folks,
I don't want to consume a new API argument too early so want to say
I will use process_madvise with pidfs argument because I agree with
Daniel that we don't need to export implmentation on the syscall name.
I hope every upcoming new syscall with process has by default pidfs
so people are familiar with pidfd slowly so finallly they forgot pid
in the long run so naturally replace pid with pidfs.
