[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <E81EDAAC-F9E3-4D3A-AEE8-09E266D7FEDB@brauner.io>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 10:12:05 +1300
From: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
CC: ebiederm@...ssion.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
serge@...lyn.com, jannh@...gle.com, luto@...nel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, oleg@...hat.com, cyphar@...har.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, dancol@...gle.com, timmurray@...gle.com,
linux-man@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] procfd_signal.2: document procfd_signal syscall
On November 29, 2018 9:59:52 AM GMT+13:00, Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com> wrote:
>* Christian Brauner:
>
>> +.\" Copyright (C) 2018 Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
>
>The text seems to be largely derived from rt_sigqueueinfo, so I'm not
>sure if this appropriate here.
>
>> +the null signal (0) can be used to check if a process with a given
>> +PID exists.
>
>What does this mean if hte process is identified by file descriptor?
>
>> +.PP
>> +The optional
>> +.I info
>> +argument specifies the data to accompany the signal.
>> +This argument is a pointer to a structure of type
>> +.IR siginfo_t ,
>> +described in
>> +.BR sigaction (2)
>> +(and defined by including
>> +.IR <sigaction.h> ).
>> +The caller should set the following fields in this structure:
>> +.TP
>> +.I si_code
>> +This must be one of the
>> +.B SI_*
>> +codes in the Linux kernel source file
>> +.IR include/asm-generic/siginfo.h ,
>> +with the restriction that the code must be negative
>> +(i.e., cannot be
>> +.BR SI_USER ,
>> +which is used by the kernel to indicate a signal sent by
>> +.BR kill (2))
>> +and cannot (since Linux 2.6.39) be
>
>Obsolete reference in this context.
>
>> +.TP
>> +.B ESRCH
>> +The process or process group does not exist.
>> +Note that an existing process might be a zombie,
>> +a process that has terminated execution, but
>> +has not yet been
>> +.BR wait (2)ed
>> +for.
>
>Again: What does this mean if the process identified by a descriptor?
>Does a process in zombie state exist in this sense or not?
>
>Thanks,
>Florian
Updating the document is on my Todo.
Florian, can you take a look at the actual patch too, please?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists