[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240209154305.GC3282@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2024 16:43:05 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] pidfd: change pidfd_send_signal() to respect
PIDFD_THREAD
On 02/09, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> How do you feel about the following (untested...) addition?
LGTM, but let me read this patch once again tomorrow, I have
a headache today.
> I've played with PIDFD_SIGNAL_PROCESS_GROUP as well but that code is
> fairly new to me so I would need some more time.
Heh, I was going to send another email to discuss this ;)
Should be simple, but may be need some simple preparations.
Especially if we also want PIDFD_SIGNAL_SESSION_GROUP.
So the question: do you think we also want PIDFD_SIGNAL_SESSION_GROUP?
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists