[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190326184747.GB114492@google.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 14:47:47 -0400
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Cc: jannh@...gle.com, khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru, luto@...nel.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, serge@...lyn.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
arnd@...db.de, keescook@...omium.org, adobriyan@...il.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, mtk.manpages@...il.com, bl0pbl33p@...il.com,
ldv@...linux.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, oleg@...hat.com,
nagarathnam.muthusamy@...cle.com, cyphar@...har.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, dancol@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/4] pid: add pidctl()
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 07:19:30PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
[snip]
> > > > I am actually supportive of Daniel's view that by combining too many
> > > > arguments into a single syscall, becomes confusing and sometimes some
> > > > arguments have to be forced to 0 in the single shoe-horned syscall. Like you
> > >
> > > There's a difference between an ioctl() and say seccomp() which this is
> > > close to:
> > > int seccomp(unsigned int operation, unsigned int flags, void *args);
> > > The point is that the functionality is closely related not just randomly
> > > unrelated stuff. But as I said I'm more than willing to compromise.
> >
> > Sounds great, yeah whatever makes sense.
>
> In case I haven't said this enough: I really appreciate the discussion
> and in general the help on this. That probably sometimes gets lost in
> mails sometimes. :)
I appreciate you saying that and thanks for the work on this :)
- Joel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists